brain
eee sic)
spat o shaeee
)
a
HF inaenteet
hsearse
ahuiberinds
oteige
Te hp ae
vr Palas ; ieee : i! j
rales, ih pike
Me a le
Haiti t
a"
ae
4 ie Ney yf
Shoes she
Ree :
at
aie
an
in
ce oe ee ie
Miura Ye Seat
har
i
ae
3
Lt ATE Be a Ay pacaea aa) 2 i
heey
pal Pie Dd 5 ol yds Legs i
eal Ppeecrerenan
an ra eren aia Soh ra
aa ag
anh i
mes
Ne tps
eae
Li
tabetha
vin
ee! ae eciep Heow, we nae
Ty eae era a
fs ly :
GS Fen
i
f
ee
‘
uae
N a
atthe)
be
ote thy
neal
a _
ees
Sa
oe
cee
a)
Ae
hs
Ny
Th
ft we vy
tps ay
d ;
¥ ie K :
MIN aed) H i ne ink
ad ATU NH
babes :
ih fi Wine) vy
at inert
eS la
felit) abc
2
a es dep :
Wag 'y tabential
is
"
aciae
ht
TUTION NOILNLILSNI Saluvyudlt LIBRARIES SMITHSONI
a raed ~ ane ee Ga pi
MALESEANS INSTEON | sh nor i UVa g mt BRARI ES (SMITHSON
< . an. = < = Lx Ve SS
z a z sj ZS N a
77) G > na WM , A WY” @
— je) 5 O 4 x \N fe)
sid 2 = oe oe x 2
s > GG = ot ae = a fas
Vv) rh ee 7) Fg 7) ee ae
SJIYVYUEIT_ LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILOLILSN! NVINOSHLI
‘ee ys tu oe i = NS
= (ED) = (EA) 2 ip 3 (EM) = EM | ES
ac ar oO > ow S
8) _ co = co i
ony © sows : i © seed Oo ;
kh call z ae Se = J z : :
MITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION _ NOILALILSNI, NVINOSHLINS a LIBRARI ES_ SMiThaa"
\e 5
8) = w = w =
a E 20 a re =
~ = > ee a» ~~
. . 2 ' 2 ;
" 2 m D m a°
w cd ee eee — w” =
WINOSHLINS S3iuVuaty Ais BRARI BS TT HSONIAN INSTITUTION m=
; 2
= y ak = < = <
2 S = 5 z 2 5
@ 2 ie: 2 WY B 'g
z a = EF SJ 2 FE
> = AN. > = SS >" =
P4 ” a RR eae ca z 7
_ INSTITUTION _NOLLG TEST NVINOSRLING 53 bYvVddil LIBRARI ES SMITHSON!
= LJ 2 c uj a ud yy,
a : = = z = 4
ten < i oe =5 _ iy 4
= a 5 Pe = « * he
rs: ait S na O =
2 a z od 7 = | ad
VWINOSHLINS S3IHNVWUa Neat BRARI aan ee LL SNE
sy = menace ; = wi
7 dt wo = Pa: = w
~ 2 - a aw sal :
5 = 9 m ob nm
& wo < a) = 7)
Ed
a
+
MY
O
<
>
=
w z
z < =z INS
Zz = = 4 ysl fe = WINS
O 3 : O = Bly O We &
ERS 2 FH 3 BY iS
S3JIYVYEIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLI
” = ” 2 < 2
- ” ya Pah os 7,
w i, oO. on oc i.
“, ~4 ’
: : = : : :
os Oo . fe) ~ re)
mee z ‘ial Ps J = yy
IMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI SMITHSON
- ay Pail ait bs i = ,
‘ = oO — O Sad 2) P y,
in - - i“ ince GE:
“i D> = > : = | > c Yy ew,
o z AR: keane o Zz
; LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI
ysalavagi7 LIB pp oMITH ot * LILSNI
= < = < = ss <
a z ~ z 4 | ae
7 oO Bs O = £ oO
: 2 8 Z 7 g
3 = z = z E
tee
Ss
2 a, —
a Pear <3 ee kaw ed
$3
N!
” | ee 7 ne ie cB
UTION lehahas apeahoie NVINOSHLINS S3 lyvud ree iIBRARI ES (SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
C8 [a Se ee a ee 2
— + z a Z WN | 3 =
re ce O = D9 Qe BR = 5 +
. 2 Z B ZR 8 z
». 2 - = = ‘ae = 2
ose , = } S 4 s ae S >
useless 77) : rd 77) ._ 2 | 7, ee ee
Yagil _ LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSN! NVINOSHLINS S3IUVYUGIT |
Gh oe ul “2. rf 6 8 :
x pi ie Pie 0s Ww uw)
ee. ao. oe ac a ow be.
— < % io < wf < 2
: az C e E ° :
— ss) — © co io
z ed =z od = om | “=
NVINOSHLINS S3SI¥Vugit
Zz re Zz 5 ae z - z
4 no <2 fo w ° w °
E 2 We 5 : : 2 :
: a RNS Pe > = &> F
es Qyv _ oe a be
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3luvugia_|
+ og ” a a, : z w | Zz
- A, 3 2 = @ 2 = fi,
Oo WEN = 5 SS = 2 & oy 5
2 yA S A ~ WEY @ ‘oD wv 2
= S AS \ > ‘oe SW ‘ Pegs ps © he
ia ee ae ed :- j
ITION NULL ALSN( ONOIHLNS 83 lyvadait LIB RARI ES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION
oc - “ ue 2 ac a oc
< c Se SNS: < Cc. «t ms on «t
_ oO a a Oo ao? 5 faa)
a 2 wd 4 a 2 i
ud Py tl BRARI ES_ ~ INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI_ NVINOSHLIWS S3luvy gid
wea 4 eis mn in Oy ee = enn
“ah te ronda | 5 ran 5 i
hie - GG ed i el ‘a =
S = 7 ae
JTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS SMITHSONIAN ;
YW) - 72) a vy z 2)
a 5 : ‘ : :
g 2 g 2 g i g
» Zz = < = = e 2
Gane = ~ = ce = >
ee 3 7) a vy) .* 7) wee
oor) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILONLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IiY¥vVudIN Lt
= w on 7p) > as uw 2
7) uJ ” Wy 7) XX se 7)
oe a. a a oc o
pa < 5 - < ye. < Pe
= =) = . = A 5
O Ss Oo te oO a O
Zz hie = i z “hoe Zz
JTION NOILNLILSNI S3'Y¥YVYUdsIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION |h
é : : : "eee :
= 3 - » = _ =
in a e a Ee ee ee
- a r wl E io -
Z m Zz 7 Z m z
~ a W = ” se
LIBRARIES INSTITUTION NOILOLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS L
a ihe Y a w z wn z
z eo. ba ~ Wis fy, Z = z
o ae e) = j 2 Oo ps O
i ae a. at ae: YP fl, = o r
= < ape a, Fs = oe
Hee > = >" s > 3
2 “ae
TERE NOLIN A ng ijwwya a~) IPBaAMNt PM RRC IC Hey... SERIE hn nRRe os it
Babiceaa iy ie ok
“Association of Systematics Collections oo
in cooperation. with ~
Holcomb Research Institute ey
“Mlinois s Natural Histor Survey . : i
and
FOUNDATIONS
FOR A
NATIONAL
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Edited by
Ke Chung Kim
and
Lloyd Knutson
Published by the
Association of Systematics Collections
In Cooperation With
Holcomb Research Institute
and
Illinois Natural History Survey
FOUNDATIONS FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Published May 12, 1986
Copyright © by the Association of Systematics Collections
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
electronic means, including photocopy, xerography, recording, or by use of any
information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission of the
publisher. The only exceptions are small sections that may be incorporated into
book reviews.
ISBN: 0-942924-13-4
Copies of FOUNDATIONS FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY may
be ordered from:
ASSOCIATION OF SYSTEMATICS COLLECTIONS
c/o Museum of Natural History
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045 U.S.A.
(913) 864-4867
il
CONTENTS
Foreword
a, ol 0) 7 Da ama ae nb tel ig hai Nua ares Rasd rt rate, sone estado lion donno ingle de. Yh Vil
Preface
L. Knutsonand Ki": Ka re Fe ee AE Seah Pee), DHS Sea: Rae tee cate 1X
CONTIDINGES oR BU oy ata iene ier ea i aa eer eae MS Xl
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
Scientific Bases for a National Biological Survey
Kote. Bere aan Le eg er Sat gad are neuer aces a ee ee haere ties 3
SECTION II. ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Prefatory Comments
| ose: | a ES Rr leie ko Aah Ra Sa Labi MIC PRMME A peel y's tecardehile, 4” Sr Ye:
Systematics and Long-Range Ecologic Research
By Chermonl 56s as hoi Pet PEE ENO SES at BA 29
Diversity, Germplasm, and Natural Resources
C. M.. Sehonewald-Cow. ou Ly. 2 Se, FE, Re aay 45
The Role of a National Biological Survey in Environmental Protection
(115. aE ae Moe Mame MNT a. aay P UMe eecn a levine ME wash agey eS ho Ae =e
Agricultural Research: The Importance of a National Biological Survey to Food
Production
WW. Relmage i od ic al Peta Ge ak ities cence neue a eA tang tel Ae dee me etree Conese 65
Plant Protection and a National Biological Survey
Bee Le FORRES RS a ee ae ee i,
SECTION III. BIOLOGICAL SURVEY INFORMATION
Prefatory Comments
Bo Cay; SN glee ae caste se: at ayeh ah i ek Sak bak a ea a Tbe EO A a OR 87
Biological Survey Data: Introduction
We ree lg dink ekc VM ee pile lk kbs Uli Medicale (et agen BW e bea cai: Menai 91
Biological Survey Data Bases: Characteristics, Structure, and Management
Ra Ge hs a Re Se sey yoo Gh Cl as hao bie eck 105
Development of Research Information Systems: Concepts and Practice
J URE gags coe Ui AN Raa aio Gc daa at ALUN ea age Peep rere re 119
Public and Scientific Dissemination of National Biological Survey Data
a er ee el a Pe oe ay Wok ee Skew 133
Applications and Use of Biological Survey Data
Te ee ee oe ene a el eee ans 141
ADP Technological Perspectives of Biological Survey Systems
Phy SeCNMCGV ARO IM IGEUY rt Sa a es Chee ee eke ee ere nee teas 153
SECTION IV. LEGISLATIVE AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR A
NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Prefatory Comments
Beem ardGits lhc ine Homie, BPRS AS. ewe ow 1 nites 163
Federal Legislation and Historical Perspectives on a National Biological Survey
gee Od il eincgi Sa ely ky ga oD ay pee 167
State and Private Legislative and Historical Perspectives, With Comments on the
Formation of a National Biological Survey
poh EES CRS SUE TASS Su BPS ESOT ASS OSE uly) 2 UO Rae Pe Rt a 177
SECTION V. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Prefatory Comments
FE COST TTS IE 70 AER CD SG 1 2 ER ec 185
The Australian Biological Resources Study: 1973-1985
Vgbagl CME 1S 22 A RRR ae 8 OF Re 7 OORT Ibe Ae ht a ee 187
Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods)
Fae NG SOARS Sc ccla ee One Ce mentee renee OMe et cS ene Me 203
SECTION VI. CONCLUSION
An Overview of the Symposium
1 ARS fo 51 oY GR, & SRR Re eS eh SHOP mag A AR Teor te 08 RY EMR 1 2 A 211
1V
Summary of Recommendations
R. M: West-and: We D. -Duckworthe. 02% oat, es a ea BI
Epilogue
K. C. Kim and L. Knutson
oce @ @ © © © © @ 6 ee5ee¢ @ @ wee oe we © Be Bec eo woe wee ee ee ew el ee
ai : i
pa eee
che
Ae ae
A
ve rt
a ;
ae pec
rye Lin,
‘
i]
mn
+ F
ub A
ay ta es
’
a a
a Nv,
we ' te San
Foreword
I believe that history is on the side of systematics and with it the prospects for
a national biological survey. To gain the support required it will be necessary to
persuade the scientific community that systematists are gathering themselves for
an effort that can carry along biology as a whole in some fundamental way, as
well as one that conspicuously benefits society. The subject as a whole has not
had much success of this kind in the recent past. Too often I have heard other
biologists say, ““When you give a taxonomist a grant, he goes off somewhere and
writes a specialized monograph, and that’s the end of it.’ And “‘Systematists
haven’t formulated a set of central questions in science that they alone are pe-
culiarly qualified to answer.”’
Now the ambience is starting to change, for reasons having to do with two
circumstances of historical necessity external to systematics. The first can be called
the pluralization of biology. There are relatively few general principles and uni-
versal phenomena in biology at the molecular and cellular levels, and they have
been pursued with such massive support and armies of scientists that while the
field as a whole continues to advance impressively the number of significant
discoveries per investigator per lifetime is in sharp decline. If I read the signs
right, a new appreciation is growing for comparative studies, evolutionary recon-
structions, and the study of particular groups of organisms in their own right. Put
another way, the analysis of diversity is the new land of opportunity in biology:
ten million or more species await, each with 10° to 10° bits of genetic information
and a history ranging far back into geological time.
Meanwhile the practical need for knowledge of biological particularity grows
more compelling each year. With the growing stress on the world environment,
with each turn of the screw, the need for complete biological surveys becomes
more obvious. For how will it be otherwise possible to monitor the decline of
genetic diversity and shifts in ecosystems? How can biologists expect to pinpoint
the species of most potential benefit to humanity during the tumultuous years
ahead? Conducting research in applied biology without biological surveys is like
trying to read an encyclopedia with a 200-word vocabulary.
The authors of Foundations for a National Biological Survey have expressed
these exigencies very well. They provide authoritative accounts of the needs and
promise of a national survey, as well as parallel efforts in other countries. The
collection deserves to be read—and used—both by systematists and the other
scientists and policy makers for whom diversity will be an increasingly important
issue in the future.
Edward O. Wilson
Harvard University
Vil
> ey
ae te
ap
> |
| bt bite ands
nid are: Teflon
manny, whos
iy nlistwe rey
pena? Woas ye
rk ae: wae sion.
ances ib sitocag
. aviooge sit
aKF Thrade:
ais
ane
Preface
A comprehensive knowledge of the species of plants, animals, and microor-
ganisms in the U.S. and an understanding of their interrelationships have been
fundamental goals of the biological sciences in the U.S. for well over 200 years.
Much has been accomplished toward meeting those goals. Individual, regional,
and serial taxonomic studies have been published, and major collections built.
Federal, state, and special-purpose surveys have been conducted, and some con-
tinue to be active today. Yet we remain far from the needed, more complete state
of knowledge of our flora and fauna. Over the past few years especially, a strong
interest in a national biological survey has developed in the community of bi-
ologists.
There are diverse driving forces and interests on the part of both suppliers and
users of a national biological survey. All of these interests seem to have a place
in the development of a survey. They include interests and points of view of:
-individual researchers;
-professional disciplines, including the dozen or more national and regional
societies that have recently passed resolutions in support of a biological survey
and those yet to express their interests;
-public agencies (federal, state, and local); and
-universities, museums, and other private sector organizations.
Still other potential driving forces are, appropriately, waiting for the scientific
community to engage in further peer review processes with regard to the nature,
requirements, and benefits of a national biological survey before they support the
endeavor.
Thus, the Association of Systematics Collections (ASC), as the national orga-
nization comprised of institutional members and concerned with systematics
collections and progress in systematic biology, decided at its 1984 Annual Meeting
to call for a major discussion on a national biological survey among the scientific
public. At this meeting, the plight of the systematics community was discussed
and priorities for the next decade suggested by K. C. Kim, H.-P. Schultze, C.
Hubbs, P. F. Stevens, V. R. Ferris, and M. Kosztarab. Their concerns were echoed
in the concept of a national biological survey for promoting systematic biology
and a better understanding of the North American flora and fauna. This was in
part an extension of steps taken toward a national biological survey by Michael
Kosztarab through the ACS Council on Applied Systematics established in 1982
and chaired by K. C. Kim. As systematic entomologists—and thus having been
confronted with the “‘worst case” situation, that is, the insects—we appreciated
ASC’s invitation to organize a broadscale national meeting on a biological survey.
In developing a program on this subject for the 1985 ASC Annual Meeting, we
felt that the primary emphasis should be placed on the scientific and technical
bases for a survey, the relationships of major scientific endeavors to a national
biological survey, the linkages between a survey and the diverse user community,
and the scope and benefits of a national biological survey. Although questions of
funding, organizational basis, structure, and functioning are very important, it
was felt that the scientific rationale should be pursued first. A national biological
survey starts with specimens, with collections, and it is important to first consider
1X
these aspects, specifically and in detail. Collections are maintained largely to
provide information for research and service purposes. We felt it important to
concentrate on the data provided by collections—the kinds of data and how they
are obtained, stored, managed, provided, and used. The authors were selected for
their knowledge and experience in the specific areas and for the varying perspec-
tives that they could bring to considerations of survey issues, not necessarily
because they are or are not proponents of a national biological survey.
The purview of the 1985 ASC Symposium went far beyond the subject of
collections. About 125 people attended the meeting. Many operational as well as
technical points were raised in the formal and informal discussions: the relative
degree of emphasis needed on tropical and North American survey work (and
opportunities for synergism); potential competition of a national biological survey
with existing programs (and opportunities for new funds); centralized vs. distrib-
uted models for a survey; extent of emphasis on ecological and environmental
uses of survey data; neglect of certain groups, especially microorganisms; possible
inherent values of a “‘national” effort; basic and applied emphases; geographic
extent of a U.S. survey; and relationship of a national biological survey to national
economic needs, to mention a few.
This book, primarily based on the proceedings of the 1985 ASC Symposium,
is divided into six sections. In the first section, scientific bases for a national
biological survey are discussed and the rationale and linkages ofa survey described.
The second section deals with the relevance and relationships of a national bio-
logical survey to agricultural, conservation, ecological, and environmental con-
siderations. In the third section, the characteristics, structure, management, and
dissemination of biological survey data are considered from several different
perspectives. The fourth section deals with legislative and historical perspectives
at federal, state, and private levels. In the fifth section, ambitious biological survey
programs in Australia and Canada are described and related to a national biological
survey for the U.S. The final section provides an overview and summary rec-
ommendations. We especially draw the reader’s attention to these recommen-
dations.
We are very grateful to the authors for their thoughtful and important contri-
butions to the meeting and to this book. Special appreciation goes to Michael J.
Bean for his important contribution, although he did not attend the meeting and
belatedly participated in this effort.
We also thank Lorin I. Nevling and Stephen R. Edwards for inviting us to
organize the meeting, John Richard Schrock, Stephen R. Edwards, and Sharon
Mader of the ASC office for their excellent efforts in data entry and assisting in
the editing of this book, and William L. Murphy of the Biosystematics and Ben-
eficial Insects Institute, USDA, for his important editing and proofreading con-
tributions.
Lloyd Knutson
Beltsville, MD
Ke Chung Kim
University Park, PA
February 1, 1986
Contributors
Michael J. Bean, Environmental Defense Fund, 1616 P Street NW, Suite 150,
Washington, District of Columbia 20036
Peter B. Bridgewater, Director, Bureau of Flora and Fauna, G.P.O. Box 1383,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Barry Chernoff, Assistant Curator of Ichthyology, The Academy of Natural Sci-
ences of Philadelphia, Nineteenth and the Parkway, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103
Hugh V. Danks, Head, Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods),
Invertebrate Zoology Division, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada K1A OM8
W. Donald Duckworth, Director, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000-
A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
Melvin Dyer, Senior Research Staff Member, Environmental Science Division,
Building 1505, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Stephen R. Edwards, Executive Director, Association of Systematics Collections,
c/o Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Michael Farrell, Director, Carbon Dioxide Information Center, Building 1505,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Allan Hirsch, Director, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW (A-104), Washington, District of Columbia 20460
Robert E. Jenkins, Jr., Vice President for Science and Natural Heritage Programs,
The Nature Conservancy, 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22200
Ronald L. Johnson, Senior Staff Officer, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service— Plant Protection Quarantine, USDA, Room 609, Federal Center Build-
ing, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782
Maureen C. Kelly, Director for Document Analysis Division, Bioscience Infor-
mation Services (BIOSIS), 2100 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
H. Edward Kennedy, President, Bioscience Information Services (BIOSIS), 2100
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Xl
Ke Chung Kim, Professor of Entomology and Curator, Frost Entomological Mu-
seum, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State ie PTY, University
Park, Pennsylvania 16802 |
Waldemar Klassen, Director, Beltsville Area, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
Room 227, Building 003, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center— West, Belts-
ville, Maryland 20705
Lloyd Knutson, Director, Biosystematics and Beneficial Insects Institute, Agri-
cultural Research Service, USDA, Room 1, Building 003, Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center - West, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Michael Kosztarab, Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Orie Loucks, Director, Holcomb Research Institute, Butler Vninensity, 2600 Sun-
set Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208
Nancy Morin, Administrative Curator, Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299,
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Lorin I. Nevling, Jr., Director, Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road
at Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605
Paul G. Risser, Chief, Illinois Natural History Survey, 176 Natural History Build-
ing, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820
Christine Schonewald-Cox, Research Scientist and Coordinator for NPS-UC Co-
operative Studies Unit, National Park Service, USDI, Ecology Institute, Wikson
Hall, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Stanwyn G. Shetler, Assistant Director for Programs and Curator, Department
of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Room W403 NHB, Washington,
District of Columbia 20560
Wallace A. Steffan, Director, Idaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State
University, Campus Box 8096, Pocatello, Idaho 83209
Robert M. West, Director, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Edward O. Wilson, Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science, Museum of Com-
parative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Xil
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION
'
ae iia"
: ae
y aS ‘4
4 sil
oa a \ “ ’
we:
ae
zl
mE
ee
ahs
an
phy 2,
Ae el
"
iu
af
=
-_—— an
mee hy
TREY, ove
“J agit
Scientific Bases for a
National Biological Survey
Ke Chung Kim
The Pennsylvania State University
Lloyd Knutson
Biosystematics and
Beneficial Insects Institute
Abstract: The biota—fauna and flora—constitutes the living component of a
natural ecosystem in which all organisms interact among themselves and also
react and adjust in specific ways to their environments. The biota consists of
unique, irreplacable resources, most of which are as yet untapped for human
needs. It is fundamental to the utilization and management of the biota, the
prevention of undue damage to natural ecosystems, and conservation of natural
diversity that all of the component species are documented and the dynamics
of the biota are understood. A national biological survey is the means to arrive
at an understanding of these basic needs. The essence of a biological survey is
an accumulation of systematic knowledge of the fauna and flora of a region,
and thus biological surveys provide the essential database about living organ-
isms for understanding ecosystem dynamics and conservation of living diver-
sity. A biological survey is immediately linked to man’s innate love of life and
his own survival and is also directly relevant to a wide range of scientific
disciplines and societal needs. Biological survey data provide in-depth data-
bases for many fields and disciplines, such as agriculture, biogeography, ecology,
entomology, parasitology, economic botany, tropical biology, and environ-
mental sciences. In this chapter, such linkages are elaborated for ecology, par-
asitology, tropical research, and biotechnology. Other linkages between a na-
tional biological survey and various societal needs are also examined as an
introduction to the following chapters. They include agriculture, environmental
interests, germplasm resources, biological diversity, international programs,
and state and federal programs.
Keywords: Biota, Flora, Fauna, Systematics, Ecology, Parasitology, Biotech-
nology, Agriculture, Environment, Diversity.
INTRODUCTION
The living species of plants, animals, and microorganisms must be documented
and the processes fundamental to the maintenance of the biota must be understood
(Authorized for publication on September 26, 1985 as paper number 7266 in the Journal
Series of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station, University Park, Pennsylvania
16802, U.S.A.)
4 KIM AND KNUTSON
before we can fully utilize these organisms and knowledgeably monitor the health
of our ecosystems. This need to enhance our understanding of the natural world
is the primary basis for a biological survey, which is an organized effort to develop
the systematic knowledge of the fauna and flora of a region. The biota—fauna
and flora—includes all the organisms peculiar to a location, region, or specific
environment and constitutes the living component ofa natural ecosystem in which
all organisms interact and in which each reacts and adjusts in specific ways to its
environment. The structure and pattern of the biota are molded by such inter-
actions.
Over evolutionary time, many new species have evolved and many others have
perished through the dynamic process of interactions of biotic and physical factors.
Extinction does not exclude the human species. During the last 100 years the
human species has become the major unsettling force in the evolution of natural
ecosystems and has contributed to the extinction of many organisms and to the
imbalance of ecosystem dynamics. This process in turn threatens the sustained
evolution of human civilization and causes concern for the very survival of our
own species. Thus, prevention of undue damage to natural ecosystems and con-
servation of natural diversity should become biological imperatives for human
survival. The first step in these efforts is an accurate assessment of the fauna and
flora. In this paper we provide some opinions and conjectures in an attempt to
clarify some of the scientific rationale and needs for a national biological survey.
THE BIOTA
The biota represents a contemporary diversity of living organisms, much of
which is still poorly known. Since life began, many new species have evolved,
and many others have become extinct. Forces of speciation and extinction con-
tinually changed the patterns of organismic diversity throughout the evolutionary
history of the earth’s ecosystem, and such evolutionary forces have molded the
contempory biota.
The biota consists of unique, irreplaceable resources, most of which are un-
tapped for human needs. The fauna and flora are sources of antibiotics, medicines,
natural pesticides, industrial raw materials, food, fiber, fuels, ornamentals, and
recreation. These resources must be protected from extinction, and biological
surveys are essential to providing the basis of information for such protection.
In the early days of man as a hunter/gatherer, a mere 11,000 years ago, we were
a symbiotic partner with other organisms in the natural ecosystems. These eco-
systems represent the successional evolutionary changes of the more than two-
billion-year history through which all extant species have evolved. During the
last one million years, the human species emerged and sustained its evolution
before industrial/military society took hold of human destiny. This suggests that
the post-Pleistocene ecosystem has been favorable to human existence. Further-
more, the biotic structure of this ecosystem, for the last 15,000 years, has promoted
the rapid but sustained evolution of modern man. If the human species is to
survive and sustain its wellbeing during the next 10,000 years and beyond, we
must conserve and properly manage what is left of the pre-industrial diversity of
the earth’s ecosystem.
Extinction is a natural process that has occurred throughout the evolutionary
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 5
history of organisms. Mass extinctions of the Permian trilobites, Jurassic am-
monites, and late Cretaceous dinosaurs demonstrate this evolutionary phenom-
enon. In fact, of the total number of species that have ever occurred on earth,
more than 98 percent have become extinct (New, 1984). Extinction is caused by
both biological factors and habitat alterations. Biological factors include com-
petition, predation, parasitism, and diseases, whereas habitat alterations usually
involve physical aspects such as geological change, climate, and catastrophe (Fran-
kel and Soule, 1981). Extinction of a species results in the permanent loss of
specific genetic diversity and may result in disturbance to the biological stability
of the ecosystem.
In the last 2,000—3,000 years, the human species has emerged as a major element
of the deterministic forces that have contributed to the extinction of many living
organisms. As a result of the expansion of human habitation, agriculture, and
commerce, and more recently, increases in industrial pollution, mankind has
become the dominant biotic factor contributing to habitat alterations. As con-
temporary society expands, with an increasing population, human needs and uses
of natural resources are exceeding what is available. To meet these societal de-
mands, we abuse limited resources and inadvertently degrade and damage our
environment. Accurate assessment of our natural resources and analyses of the
rapidly changing human environment are the first steps toward a rational man-
agement of human ecosystems and sustained use of natural resources without
eventually endangering human survival. Systematic knowledge of the fauna and
flora is fundamental to this process, which will preserve biological values not only
for the sustenance of the living diversity but also for the very survival of the
human species.
SYSTEMATICS AND BIOTIC INVENTORY
Systematics as defined by Mayr (1969) is “‘the science dealing with the diversity
of organisms”’ and is the most fundamental and inclusive discipline within the
science of biology. Descriptions and classifications of living species provide the
scientific basis upon which many other biological disciplines are developed, and
taxonomic services provided by systematists make possible the research activities
of scientists in other biological and environmental disciplines. These dual activ-
ities, which systematists have practiced for so long, are taken for granted by most
other scientists and by the public. During the past several decades, that attitude
has helped erode support for systematics; thus the livelihood of systematics as a
science has drastically declined, as the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
Robert McC. Adams, correctly assessed (Holden, 1985). This trend has also re-
sulted, in part, in the current critical shortage of taxonomic expertise (Kim, 1975a,
b).
During the past 200 years, tremendous progress has been made in exploring
the diversity of organisms. Approximately one million species of plants, animals,
and microorganisms have been described, and more than 90 percent of the extant
mammals and birds are relatively well documented. However, most other groups
of living diversity remain poorly known; perhaps less than 10 percent of the extant
species for many taxa such as the Insecta is known. Simpson (1952) estimated
the total number of living species as two million, and Mayr (1969) considered it
6 KIM AND KNUTSON
to range from 5 to 10 million species. Recently, Erwin (1982, 1983) estimated
that insect species alone might number as high as 30 million when all undescribed
insects in tropical rain forests, most of which have not yet been collected, are
included. Considering the vast extent of living diversity, our knowledge of the
earth’s biota is at best meager. Many biological inferences based on the current
database thus must be superficial. Systematists are confronted with an enormous
task—to study and document this diversity before many species disappear and
the stability of natural ecosystems is disturbed beyond repair.
Systematic biology, particularly alpha- and beta-taxonomy, as a science has
declined in the U.S. during the past 30 years, resulting in a serious lack of the
necessary taxonomic expertise and a shortage of basic data on the North American
biota. Many universities have phased out systematic biology programs. This sit-
uation has in turn reduced employment opportunities for young systematists,
particularly those in the field of taxonomy (Sabrosky, 1970; Kim, 1975a, b). A
national biological survey could become a major vehicle to revive systematic
biology and quickly improve the declining taxonomic expertise.
Biosystematics research is central to the conduct of a national biological survey.
Without a proper emphasis on improving the extent of systematics research, a
biological survey likely will fail. It is quite clear that the systematics community
expects a national biological survey to provide increased support for systematics
research and resources. However, systematists need to keep the broad objectives
of a survey in mind, far beyond simply expecting it to support their own interests.
Systematics and a national biological survey should not become what Pramer
(1985) has called terminal science, which “... performs for its own selves or solely
for the sake of scientists.’’ Systematists and other biologists interested in a national
biological survey must be responsive to the needs of the taxpayers.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
A biological survey is an organized effort to study and document the fauna and
flora. There are different concepts of a national biological survey. Whereas some
consider the results of a survey to be primarily a series of identification manuals
(which in fact are sorely needed), others place a high priority on an informational
database, or network of databases, of value to user groups concerned with con-
servation, germplasm, pest management, etc. Still others emphasize basic taxo-
nomic research. Obviously, these are interrelated and mutually beneficial results.
But whatever results are desired, resources are needed. In all cases, it is the
resources of collections and collection-associated data that would provide these
final products and capabilities.
Biological survey activities by the Federal government began in 1885 with the
formation of the Economic Ornithology Branch in the Division of Entomology,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. One year later, this Branch was expanded to the
Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammology. Ten years later, this became
the Division of Biological Survey. Another decade later, in 1905, the Division
became a full Bureau in the USDA. The Bureau was transferred to the Department
of the Interior in 1939 and combined with the Bureau of Fisheries in 1940 to
form the Fish and Wildlife Service (Gardner, 1984). Since then, most national
biological survey activities have been gradually phased out, although certain proj-
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 7
ects, such as the Flora North America project, have contributed to survey objec-
tives for certain periods of time.
Analysis of the different kinds of biological surveys being conducted throughout
the world provides useful perspectives as to what direction might be taken in the
development of a national survey in the U.S. Danks and Kosztarab (in press)
provide an especially illuminating analysis in which existing biological surveys
are reviewed by means of examples from regions that differ in faunal diversity,
state of faunal knowledge, and available resources. They noted:
-““A ‘complete’ biological survey collects and preserves specimens, studies tax-
onomy, considers species inventory, distribution and faunal patterns within
the region, and publishes the results of these investigations.”
-““In addition, a survey is involved in ecological, experimental and evolutionary
studies aimed at understanding as well as documenting the species composition
and distribution, and in scientific coordination of studies, including advising
government agencies or other authorities in matters related to the fauna and
its value.”
-“‘All of these roles seldom reside in one place or organization, but the broad
concept of a biological survey requires that all of the roles coexist.”
-““Such a survey can be coordinated from an overview of regional scientific
problems and requirements, and through good communication among scien-
tists. This can be assisted by an organization which provides liaison, and knows
the whereabouts of resources for work on the fauna.”
-““The chief value of the various types of biological surveys reviewed is that
they can promote or extend basic taxonomic work on the fauna in three major
ways: 1) By publishing broad works on the fauna (e.g., catalogues) and organ-
izing faunal work into coherent series. 2) By coordinating work by various
individuals and agencies to improve efficiency, and to broaden the use and
integration of taxonomic and faunistic information; for example, by facilitating
joint ventures in fieldwork, collecting, research, or synthesis of information.
3) By funding basic work in a cohesive way, or in a way that augments existing
studies so as to remedy conspicuous deficiencies.”
-““All of these roles stem from scientific requirements and thus must be organized
through or by the scientific community and not in isolation.”
-““Taxonomic surveys are necessary if organisms are to be identified and in-
ventoried, but such an inventory is only one part of any attempt to characterize
and understand regional faunas. What organisms do is a question to be asked
in parallel with what they are by any biological survey. Recognition of this
simple fact will help to provide broader support for biological surveys, both
from individual scientists and from a variety of organizations concerned with
entomological problems.”
RELEVANCE OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS TO
SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOURS
A biological survey is not an extraneous, tangential, and inconsequential interest
of relatively few systematists, but is directly, immediately, and importantly linked
to man’s love of life and his own survival. As Wilson (1984) perceptively stated,
8 KIM AND KNUTSON
we must clearly recognize the environmental values of the living diversity and
promote these values to maintain the survival of the human species.
A national biological survey is particularly important in this period when science
is considered largely in the pursuit of imperatives of national security and eco-
nomic gains. As science and engineering are increasingly embodied in the pursuit
of these national imperatives, we should not lose sight of balancing perspectives
for a world with unmet human needs and an increasingly fragile environment
(Carey, 1985). This broader view is embodied in comments by Raman (1984) on
science education:
“Science as an intellectual enterprise has had little impact on the way people
in general look at things. I contend that science should be taught not simply as
a body of useful knowledge clothed in technical vocabulary but as a mode of
inquiry into the nature of the perceived world, as an intellectual framework to
guide us in the adoption of tentative interpretations of what is observed, and
as a world view that is not ultimate truth but is applicable and acceptable only
in the context of a given set of available facts. If that point of view is also
encouraged in situations beyond technical problems, we may see a world where
there is less dogmatism and greater mutual understanding. Science should be
taught because of the value system it fosters, because of its criteria for the
acceptance of points of view as valid propositions—beautiful and powerful
theories. Science taught without reference to the scope and limits of human
knowledge, without alluding to the collective nature of the enterprise, is incom-
picte.*
We need to appreciate these kinds of concerns. A biological survey may indeed
help this nation keep its fundamental and original philosophical and ethical as-
pirations alive and well, in addition to accomplishing specific program objectives
of a national biological survey, such as production of detailed knowledge, manuals,
identification of germplasm, and grist for the general research mill.
A national biological survey could serve as an all-encompassing rationale for
study and preservation of flora and fauna, encompassing a broader diversity of
disciplines than practically any other scientific enterprise. Biological survey data
embody in-depth databases for many fields and disciplines, such as agriculture, |
biogeography, ecology, entomology, parasitology, economic botany, tropical bi-
ology, and environmental sciences. In the following sections, we will elaborate
on the relevance of biological surveys to certain scientific endeavours.
A. Ecology and Parasitology
The many researchers in the broad spectrum of ecological research would be
immediate users of biological survey data as gathered and arranged by systematists
involved in a national biological survey. There is a perception that the relation-
ships between these two major disciplines are not entirely what they should be,
at either conceptual or operational levels. For example, in the announcement for
the March 1985 symposium “Reflections on Ecology and Evolutionary Biology”’
at Arizona State University, it was noted that:
**_..1n large part, ecologists and evolutionary biologists have neglected each other,
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 9
despite the early close association between their two fields. Why have ecologists
sometimes, and sometimes not, found evolutionary thinking significant for their
own research? And why have evolutionary biologists sometimes, and sometimes
not, found ecological thinking significant for their research? Topics covered in
the conference will include: the origins of ecology; the interrelationships between
ecology, taxonomy, and biogeography; and the interrelationships between ecol-
ogy and evolutionary biology’ (Anonymous, 1984).
There is a special opportunity and need for a close relationship between long-
term ecological research and a national biological survey. Long-term ecological
research generates data and gathers material of direct importance to a survey and
at the same time is in great need of the taxonomic information that can be derived
from such data and collections. Especially, predictive taxonomic classifications
can provide useful insight into long-term ecological research. Such linkages could
include not only the Long-Term Ecological Research Program (LTER) at 12 sites
with National Science Foundation (NSF) support, but the several programs sup-
ported by state and private groups. The faunistic and floristic information needs
of NSF-supported LTER programs, needs ranging from data on nematodes in
grasslands to data on fingernail clams in the Mississippi, have recently been
analyzed (Lattin and Stanton, in prep.). For example, it is important for those
working on energy flow networks to know if the nodes represent one or several
species. The broad range of needs and opportunities relating to long-term envi-
ronmental research and development, including biological monitoring and survey,
was discussed in detail in a draft report of a conference held by the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1985). Among the 13 principal issues identified as
warranting particular emphasis were:
-Improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of physical, chemical, and bio-
logical monitoring programs to test scientific hypotheses about how environ-
mental systems operate and interact.
-Expanded collection of 10-year observations of the background physical, chem-
ical, and ecological variations in fresh waters, oceans, and the atmosphere.
-Development of biological inventories and baseline studies of ecosystem struc-
tures, functioning, and linkages.
In his presidential address to the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society
of Parasitologists, Heyneman (1984) emphasized the urgent need for new tech-
niques for initial surveys of large areas, such as field-adapted Telestar and Landsat
infrared scans for remote sensing, citing the Global Environment Monitoring
System (Gwynne, 1982). He reiterated the point stated in the Science editorial by
Kosztarab (1984)—that less than one-third of the organisms and their develop-
mental stages have been studied in the U.S. Heyneman (1984) aptly described
the need for taxonomic information relevant to parasitology:
‘Equally important would be simplified computer access to the vast biological
systematics collections available only in the world’s major museums— millions
of man-years of research now only accessible to and interpretable by rapidly
diminishing numbers of taxonomic specialists. Far wider access to these data,
keyed to geographic, geologic, biologic, and social factors, is essential for zoon-
10 KIM AND KNUTSON
otic researchers to identify faunal elements and to predict possible epidemics
among new settlers, or anticipate outbreaks to be expected with enforced mi-
grations through specified ecologic regions. The enormous potential of com-
puter-based technology for storage, integration, and worldwide access to
biomedical information underscores the wretched state of funding of systematics
studies, the nonavailability of taxonomists, and the lack of proper training for
them —at a time when this knowledge and the specialists to continue to provide
it have never been so needed, so underrated, and so unrewarded.”’
B. Tropical Research ;
Tropical habitats provide special opportunites for many kinds of interesting
and important research concerning, for example, diversity, relict floras and faunas,
and germplasm and vanishing habitats. Several important tropical habitats lie
within continental North America (e.g., southernmost Florida) and Hawaii, and
these are among the areas most disturbed by humans. A national biological survey
certainly encompasses these tropical habitats.
Is there intrinsic conflict or need for competition for support between surveys
in the tropics and a biological survey of the U.S.? Because the “biological explo-
ration of the planet Earth” is one of the ultimate goals of biology, and because
the tropical biota has a certian priority in this exploration, considerable attention
needs to be paid to the relationships between research in the tropics and a U.S.
national biological survey. Just as tropical-temperate studies have been synergistic
in many ways in the past, they can be mutually beneficial in further, in some cases
unpredictable, ways. Taxonomic and phylogenetic studies of cosmopolitan and
widely-distributed taxa make it obligatory to know both tropical and temperate
faunas and floras.
C. Biotechnology
Increased research activities in recent years in molecular biology and its allied
disciplines have generated an explosion of knowledge in fields such as systematics,
developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience, and others. To an
ever increasing extent, this knowledge has been directly applied to the production
of useful products (biotechnology). It makes sense now for every discipline not
only to examine how it can use molecular biology to advance knowledge but also
to understand how it can impact on biotechnology.
Biotechnology has been variously defined, from the “‘old biotechnology” defi-
nitions used in Europe and Japan—‘“‘the application of engineering and techno-
logical principles to the life sciences’’—to the “new biotechnology” definitions,
predominant in the U.S., which emphasize recombinant DNA techniques. The
matter of definition is important because a biological survey enterprise would
have a broader or narrower relationship with biotechnology, depending upon
whether we are referring to the broad or narrow definition. A recent article in
BioScience reviews some of the definitions and outlines some theoretical and
empirical relations between the “new’’ (r(DNA-based) biotechnology and molec-
ular biology (Markle and Robin, 1985). The definition originally adopted by the
Office of Technology Assessment (which also was adopted by other organizations
and, for a period, by NSF) is well-balanced and offers room for involvement of
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 11
some research related to a national biological survey. That is, “Biotechnology...
includes any technique that uses living organisms (or parts of organisms) to make
or modify products, to improve plants or animals, or to develop microorganisms
for specific uses’? (Office of Technology Assessment, 1984).
Recently, NSF has established an Office of Biotechnology Coordination, partly
in response to a 1984 request by the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s
Cabinet Council Working Group on Biotechnology (Wortman, 1985). The Group
called for NSF “...to examine the potential effects of environmentally related basic
research in biotechnology...,” building “‘...on the strong ecology and ecosystem
research program currently operated by NSF.’’ The NSF office has established an
accounting system for NSF-supported research relating to biotechnology and as-
sisting in the review of research proposals, especially risk assessment. The first
head of the new office, Dr. Robert Rabin, had noted, ‘““We [NSF] can’t use the
definition proposed by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1984. It’s too
broad.”’ (Wortman, 1985). However, concern about areas of research related to
biotechnology (in the context of NSF expenditures on biotechnology) was indi-
cated by Rabin’s statement, ““We must seek advice from many people and de-
termine a definition of relatedness to biotechnology as well” (italics original).
Although proposals to NSF are now being coded and analyzed from the viewpoint
of relatedness of 20 fields, “systematics” is not one of these, but ‘environmental
biology” and “‘special resources”’ are.
Many biotechnology methodologies are being used in systematics and evolu-
tionary biology research. The development of genetic libraries of diverse organ-
isms and the improvement of methodologies are complementary interactions.
Indeed, evolutionary questions of systematics are a major driving force in the
biotechnology/molecular biology area.
It is disappointing, however, that systematics of higher organisms and related
disciplines, which provide the basis for a national biological survey, have so far
not made strong conceptual or practical linkages with biotechnology programs,
especially those emphasizing the “new biotechnology.’’ Some research planners
in fact have recognized the relationship of biosystematics and related research to
biotechnology. For example, in an analysis of biotechnology-related research in
the Beltsville Area of the Agricultural Research Service, “‘“Modern Methods for
Taxonomy and Germplasm Evaluation’ was identified as one of six areas of
emphasis, and the six major specimen collections were specifically highlighted as
special resources for biotechnology (Purchase, 1984). Modern biochemical and
genetic methodologies as used in systematics research can provide the kinds of
data useful to biotechnology. Those research environments bear watching for
future opportunities.
Further opportunities for a useful relationship between biosystematics and bio-
technology will emerge via ecological research. Knowledge of the identity, dis-
tribution, and biosystematics of our endemic organisms, as well as those of other
parts of the world, is a key resource for biotechnological research. Biotechnologists
should recognize that they are now making use of the extensive knowledge that
conventional systematics research and survey work has stored up in the past.
How long will these information resources be sufficient? How much more efh-
ciently could the biotechnologists work if they were dealing with a more complete
12 KIM AND KNUTSON
resource of biosystematic information? If the predictive values of classifications
were improved, along with the development and implementation of computerized
networks of databases to provide the information, how valuable would these be
to the biotechnology industry?
Natural products research may offer another linkage. For example, take the case
of natural plant chemicals as sources of industrial and medicinal materials. Bal-
andrin et al. (1985) pointed out that only 5 to 15 percent of the 250,000 to 750,000
existing species of higher plants have been surveyed for biologically active natural
products, and, in general, the investigated species have been examined for only
one or a few types of activity. With regard to a biological survey, two other major
points emerge from their paper. First, the analytical power of the diverse meth-
odologies available today is truly remarkable. The “needle in the haystack,”’ the
rare occurrence of a highly desirable commercial genotype, can in fact be located.
Second, the very methodologies of recombinant DNA technology alleviate the
need for large amounts of rare living material; this is what brings to the forefront
the combined importance of the taxonomy of obscure organisms and the predic-
tive power of classifications. For example, large-scale production of a rare but
genetically useful plant would not be required for investigation and production
of its product.
In the process of providing such “‘up-front’’ support for biotechnology, system-
atics and ecology are also providing important direction and support for the results
of biotechnology. Forcella (1984) recently provided some forward-looking thoughts
and instructive examples with regard to these points. He commented, “‘Ecologists
are the people most fit to develop the conceptual directions of biotechnology. We
are the ones who should have the best ideas as to what successful plants and
animals should look like and how they should behave, both individually and
collectively.” He asked if ecologists should “... take the forefront in biotechnology,
and provide the rationale for choosing species, traits, and processes to be engi-
neered? I suspect this latter approach will be more profitable for the world at large
as well as for ourselves.”’ There is, or should be, direct and intimate interactions
between systematists and ecologists, as well as geneticists, in the identification
and selection of species and traits for biotechnological application, which are
much broader than strict concern about environmental safety. A biological survey
is directly related to knowledge about such species and traits, and knowledge of
many processes and ecological principles are dependent on the kinds of resources
that can be provided by a biological survey.
LINKAGES TO NATIONAL NEEDS
One of the primary objectives of the ASC symposium on a national biological
survey was to examine linkages between a biological survey and other groups,
interests, and areas of activity. Several chapters in this book will explore these
aspects in more detail. Although there may be some overlap in some of the subjects
considered, we find significant value in coming at the issues from different view-
points.
With the unifying target of understanding the flora and fauna of the U.S., it is
possible to include many other specialized areas of interests. If we really believe
that elucidation of the plants and animals of the U.S. is a valid goal, then long-
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 13
term plans are needed. Some people fear that short-term projects, especially those
with an economic emphasis, detract from the main course. We do not think so.
A. Agriculture
A number of areas in agriculture rely heavily on biological survey data. Among
these areas are plant protection and quarantine (Shannon, 1983), biological control
(Sabrosky, 1955), germplasm research (Schonewald-Cox, 1985), and gene and
biotype banking.
The broad range of phenomena applicable to the study of colonizing species is
an area of research that needs further development along conceptual lines. In
agriculture, there is special interest in this area from the point of view of both
introduced biological control agents and immigrant pests. But it is a fact that there
is not even a simple listing of the immigrant arthropod species in the U.S. In the
USDA’s Biosystematics and Beneficial Insects Institute, such a computerized
database is being developed—nearly 2,000 immigrant species are known to date,
but the total will probably be more like 6,000. The ABRS “‘Bioclimate Prediction
System”? mentioned by Peter Bridgewater in this volume is another example of
the application of survey data.
Biological control by beneficial insects began in this country in 1884 with the
introduction of the Australian vedalia beetle into San Diego for control of the
Australian cottonycushion scale. The California citrus industry was saved from
virtual elimination for the cost of $2,000 for an introduction trial. Since then,
over 600 species of parasites, predators, and phytophagous insects and mites have
been released by federal and state units to control a number of pest insects and
weeds. Nearly half, about 200 parasites and predators and 25 weed-feeding ar-
thropod species, are known to be established. Over 35 species of pests are being
substantially or completely controlled by introduced beneficials in at least some
portions of their range in the U.S. These figures are probably conservative. Until
1982, when the USDA’s ARS Biological Control Documentation Center and
National Voucher Specimen Collection were established in the USDA’s Beneficial
Insects Laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland, there was no procedure for system-
atically capturing information on releases and establishments. That deficiency
works against support for biological control, the most economical, environmen-
tally sound, and energy-conservative method of pest control. That deficiency also
contributes to a certain lack of rigor in the planning and conduct of biological
control research. Clearly, there is an important linkage between biological control
and a national biological survey.
B. Environmental Interests
Certain kinds of data derived from a national biological survey need to be
considered from the point of view of those who must meet the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The environmental protection
and conservation communities are well aware of this linkage.
In reviewing the Conservation Foundation’s 1984 report “State of the Envi-
ronment: An Assessment at Mid-Decade,”’ Pimentel (1985) makes several cogent
points:
“An encouraging assessment [in this book] of wildlife focuses primarily on
14 KIM AND KNUTSON
birds, fishes, and mammals. Although much progress in protecting these animals
has been made in the past 20 years, birds and mammals constitute less than
1% of the total biomass in our terrestrial ecosystem. About 200,000 other species
[in the U.S.] dominate the system, both in numbers and biomass. Many of
these organisms degrade and recycle wastes; some microbes fix nitrogen; bees
pollinate some crops. Many of these organisms are seriously affected by chemical
pollution. As too often happens, the report overlooks the importance of small
organisms vital to the ecosystem.”
C. Germplasm Resources and Biological Diversity
Stemming from the 1981 Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity, other
conferences, and specifically from the International Environment Protection Act
of 1983, the U.S. Congress asked the U.S. Agency for International Development
(AID) to develop a strategy on the protection and conservation of biological
diversity in developing countries. The report (Interagency Task Force, 1985):
**_..describes the basis for concern over the loss of biological and genetic diversity
in developing countries ...outlines current activities and programs undertaken
by Federal agencies to deal with natural resources conservation’, and “...pre-
sents a U.S. strategy for building on those activities and programs to assist
developing countries.”
The report, which was reviewed by Tangley (1985), is of interest to a U.S.
national biological survey from several points of view. Because the strategy in-
cludes the identification, taxonomy, and cataloging of animal and plant species,
especially in tropical environments, it should provide yet another opportunity for
the positive, synergistic effects of collections-based work in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Through such programs, increased data collection and biotic studies in developing
countries likely would involve systematists and other specialists in the United
States. U.S. national biological survey activities and the AID-initiated studies in
developing countries would contribute to our knowledge of the world biota, and
thus these studies would complement each other in a synergistic fashion. The
recent publication of ““Resource Inventory and Baseline Study Methods for De-
veloping Countries” (Conant et al., 1984) by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science also indicates the increasing international interest in
biological diversity.
D. International Programs
There are major international arenas in which a U.S. national biological survey
obviously should be involved. One is the “International Geosphere-Biosphere
Program—A Study of Global Change”’, to be coordinated by the International
Council of Scientific Unions. The preface to the report of a 1983 National Research
Council Workshop gives an impression of this developing Program (NRC, 1983):
-““If, however, we could launch a cooperative interdisciplinary program in the
earth sciences, on an international scale, we might hope to take a major step
toward revealing the physical, chemical, and biological workings of the Sun-
Earth system and the mysteries of the origins and survival of life in the bio-
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 15
sphere. The concept of an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP),
as outlined in this report, calls for this sort of bold, ‘holistic’ venture in or-
ganized research—the study of whole systems of interdisciplinary science in
an effort to understand global changes in the terrestrial environment and its
living systems. The National Research Council IGBP Workshop at Woods
Hole in July 1983 considered the major problems for research in five areas
that might naturally be coordinated in such a program: the atmosphere, oceans,
lithosphere, biosphere, and solar-terrestrial system.”
-““If we believed that the Earth was a constant system in which the atmosphere,
biosphere, oceans, and lithosphere were unconnected parts, then the traditional
scientific fields that study these areas could all proceed at their own pace treating
each other’s findings as fixed boundary conditions.”
-““A major challenge to an IGBP will be that of understanding the causes and
effects of climate change.”
-“‘Advantages equally great have come in the past 20 years from orbital sensing
of the Earth’s biota. Much of the motivation has been to develop means of
assessing conditions for the world production of food, fiber, and fuel from
renewable biological resources. The focus has been on agricultural crops, for-
ests, and rangeland of economic importance, and the principal tool has been
infrared mapping. In recent years, microwave techniques have come to the
fore, offering added capability in sensing through overcast and penetrating
more deeply into canopies of vegetation.”
Biosphere aspects of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program are, in turn,
related to four other ongoing international programs:
1. ‘““Man and the Biosphere’”’
2. “Analyzing Biospheric Change”’
3. ““A Decade of the Tropics”’
4. “Global Environmental Monitoring System”
Other international, multidisciplinary research programs are the Global Hab-
itability Program proposed by the United States at the United Nations in 1982
and the program for Climatic, Biotic, and Human Interactions in the Humid
Tropics. The advantages and disadvantages of such large national and interna-
tional coordinated programs, and previous programs such as the International
Biological Program, need to be evaluated in relation to a national biological survey.
Edelson (1985) commented on the essence of this relationship in a Science
editorial entitled ““Mission to Planet Earth”’:
‘In some ways we know more about our neighboring planets than we do about
the earth. For decades scientists have peered at Venus and Mars through tel-
escopes, and in the last decade they have had radar images of the planet surfaces
made from the earth and from orbiting satellites. They have probed the at-
mospheres of these planets and measured and sampled their surfaces with
instruments of the space age. Of course, through the centuries we have accu-
mulated a mountain of detailed data points and much phenomenological knowl-
edge about the earth and the constituents of its geosphere and biosphere. How-
ever, we lack synoptic, systematic, and temporal knowledge of our own planet
16 KIM AND KNUTSON
and an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the global processes that
affect it.”
E. State and Federal Mission Agencies
One might expect some difficulties in relating an extensive, broad-framework
enterprise such as a national biological survey to the diverse state and federal
mission agencies. We do not believe that is true. The USDA’s Agricultural Re-
search Service, for example, is a highly mission-oriented agency. One of ARS’s
basic operational tenents is that it is a problem-solving organization. However,
one of the three ARS key strategies is to ““Maintain emphasis on mission-oriented,
fundamental, long-range, high-risk research’’; this is a strategy relatively consonant
with a national biological survey. And although ARS supports systematics research
in the areas of arthropods, nematodes, animal parasites, fungi, and vascular plants,
employing about 40 research taxonomists, the programs of those laboratories are
specifically directed to meet the needs of the agency. It would be fair to expect
that mission agencies will carefully examine a national biological survey and
interact with those aspects that are rather closely related to their missions.
CONCLUSIONS
The essence of a biological survey is the accumulation of systematic knowledge
of the fauna and flora ofa region. Biological surveys provide this essential database
of knowledge about living organisms for systematics and other related scientific
endeavours. Knowledge of the biota provides not only the material basis for a
better understanding of organisms but also embodies environmental ethics and
biological values which help us to appreciate the living diversity and our own
existence in the deteriorating human ecosystem.
The biota in a natural ecosystem is an evolutionary manifestation. To reach
the post-Pleistocene ecosystem in which the human species emerged and suc-
cessfully evolved, all the organisms interacted among themselves and with their
environments, and such interactions molded the present structure and pattern of
the fauna and flora. Extinction as a natural process has occurred throughout the
evolutionary history of organisms. The human species is, unfortunately, not ex-
cluded from this process. The extant species of the earth’s biota are, in a sense,
successful survivors of continuous, intense evolutionary battles of more than two
billion years. To understand better the fauna and flora and to prevent living species
from unnecessary extinction are biological imperatives for human survival.
In relatively recent times, the human species has emerged as a major force
contributing to the extinction of many organisms and the instability of natural
ecosystems. Modern agriculture, industry, and human habitation have greatly
rearranged the pattern and adversely affected large sections of natural ecosystems
through which species have disappeared (Marine, 1969). In the 1960’s, Americans,
their thinking focused by the writings of the environmental crusader Rachel Car-
son, reacted against the use of DDT and other persistent pesticides. This move-
ment led to the passage of the National Environment Policy Act and promoted
an environmental conscience among the American public. However, toward the
year 2000 we must even more clearly recognize the biological values of living
diversity in the pursuit of imperatives for human survival.
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY bt
The essence of a biological survey is recognized by, and identified with, society
in the form of organizations and groups that touch the lives of people in various
ways, i.e. the entire range of organism-oriented organizations (Audubon Societies,
The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Small Farms, Clean Air, Clean
Water, etc.), to various political action groups. The potential extent of relationships
between a national biological survey and such groups is enormous. Consider, for
example, only the area of conservation—the National Wildlife Federation’s 1984
Conservation Directory (National Wildlife Federation, 1985) lists more than 2,500
organizations and 13,000 individuals in the U.S. and 113 other countries.
Knowledge of the North American biota is necessary because:
1) We are a member of the biota, and we will be affected by changes in the
natural ecosystem;
2) Biospheric changes due to expanding human populations and man-made
pollutants are threatening the size of the biota and its genetic structure;
3) Systematic knowledge of the fauna and flora is fundamental to the study of
the evolutionary history of organisms and man’s place in the ecosystem;
4) Accurate inventory of today’s fauna and flora is fundamental to the moni-
toring of changes in human ecosystems, forged by integration of man-biota-total
environment, which provides for our very basic survival:
5) The sciences of living diversity provide the means to sustain basic biological,
environmental, and human values.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. An assessment of the current state of knowledge of the biota in the United
States should be made at the initiation of the survey.
2. Further planning for a national biological survey should emphasize analysis
of specific conceptual and operational linkages between a biological survey
and specific institutions, disciplines, projects, and areas of research.
3. Systematists, ecologists, and applied scientists in industry could productively
and jointly analyze the relationships of a national biological survey to the
broad area of biotechnology.
4. Research leaders and planners with specific research-area expertise, as well
as representatives of the private sector, should be directly involved in plan-
ning a biological survey.
5. Other national and international meetings now being planned will deal more
extensively with aspects such as funding, organizational structure, and man-
agement. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that an overriding
requirement is that plans for implementation need to be considered in the
context of the nature and use of the information.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank F. Forcella, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS-USDA),
Morris, Minnesota; R. W. Hodges, M. D. Huettell, W. L. Murphy, A. L. Norrbom,
and H. G. Purchase, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, ARS, USDA; H. E.
Waterworth, National Program Staff, ARS, USDA; C. W. Pitts and J. Schultz,
18 KIM AND KNUTSON
The Pennsylvania State University; S. G. Shetler, Smithsonian Institution; J. L.
Brooks and associates, Biotic Systems and Resources, National Science Foun-
dation; and S. R. Edwards, Association of Systematics Collections, for their review
of the manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1984. Announcing reflections on ecology and evolutionary biology. Arizona State Uni-
versity, Tempe, Arizona. March 1-2, 1985. 2 p., unpubl.
Balandrin, M. F., J. A. Klocke, E. S. Wurtele, & W. H. Bolinger. 1985. Natural plant chemicals:
sources of industrial and medicinal materials. Science 228: 1154-1160.
Carey, W. 1985. Editorial: Science: matters of scale and purpose. Science 228: 7.
Conant, F., P. Rogers, M. Baumgardner, C. McKell, R. Dasmann, & P. Reining (eds.). 1984. Re-
source inventory and baseline study methods for developing countries. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.,
Washington, D.C. 565 p.
Conservation Foundation (The). 1984. State of the environment: an assessment at mid-Decade.
Washington, D.C. 586 p.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1985. Report on long-term environmental research and devel-
opment. U.S. Government Printing Office. 11 p. + 5 append.
Danks, H. V. & M. Kosztarab. In press. Biological surveys. Jn: L. Knutson, K. M. Harris, & I. M.
Smith (eds.) Biosystematic services in entomology. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the X VIIth
International Congress of Entomology, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany, 1984.
Edelson, B. I. 1985. Letter to the editor. Mission to planet earth. Science 227: 367.
Erwin, T. L. 1982. Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Coleopt.
Bull. 36(1): 74-75.
Erwin, T.L. 1983. Tropical forest canopies: the last biotic frontier. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 29(1):
14-19.
Forcella, F. 1984. Commentary. Ecological biotechnology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 65(4): 434-436.
Frankel, O. H. & M. E. Soule. 1981. Conservation and evolution. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Gardner, A. L. 1984. Letter to the editor: biological survey. Science 224: 1384.
Gwynne, M.D. 1982. The global environment monitoring system of UNEP. Environmental Conserv.
9: 35-41.
Heyneman, D. 1984. Presidential address. Development and disease: A dual dilemma. J. Parasitol.
70(1): 3-17.
Holden, C. 1985. New directions for the Smithsonian. Science 228: 1512-1513.
Interagency Task Force. 1985. U.S. strategy on the conservation of biological diversity. An inter-
agency task force report to Congress. U.S. Agency for International Development. Washington,
DC. x + 54 p.
Kim, K.C. 1975a. Systematics and systematics collections: Introduction. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer.
21(2): 89-91.
Kim, K. C.. 1975b. A concluding remark. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 21(2): 98-100.
Kosztarab, M. 1984. Editorial: A biological survey of the United States. Science 223: 443.
Lattin, J. D. & N. L. Stanton (in prep.). Report on workshop for ecologists and systematists on
priorities for collaborative work on soil organisms. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
May 20, 1985.
Marine, G. 1969. America the raped. Discus Books, New York.
Markle, G. E. &S.S. Robin. 1985. Biotechnology and the social reconstruction of molecular biology.
Bioscience 35(4): 220-225.
Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
National Research Council (NRC), Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources.
1983. Toward an international geosphere-biosphere program. A study of global change. Report
of a National Research Council Workshop, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 25-29, 1983. Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington, DC. xiii + 81 p.
National Wildlife Federation. 1985. Conservation directory 1984. 29th edition. Washington, DC.
SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY 19
New, T. R. 1984. Insect conservation: an Australian perspective. Series Entomologica (Editor K. A.
Spencer), Vol. 32. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 184 p.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Commercial biotechnology: international analysis. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Pimentel, D. 1985. Book review: Update on the environment. State of the environment: an assess-
ment at mid-Decade. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC. 1984. Bioscience 35(3):
198.
Pramer, D. 1985. Opinion: Terminal science. Bioscience 35(3): 141.
Purchase, H.G. 1984. Agriculture biotechnologies. Strong acceleration of research programs at Belts-
ville. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. 28 p.
Raman, V. V. 1984. Commentary. Why it’s so important that our students learn more about science.
J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 74(3): i-tii.
Sabrosky, C. W. 1955. The interrelations of biological control and taxonomy. J. Econ. Entomol.
48: 710-714.
Sabrosky, C. W.. 1970. Quo vadis, taxonomy? Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 16(1): 3-7.
Schonewald-Cox, C. M. 1985. Diversity, germplasm, and natural resources. Jn: K. C. Kim & L.
Knutson (eds.) Foundations for a national biological survey, Association of Systematics Collec-
tions.
Shannon, M. J. 1983. Systematics: A basis for effective regulatory activities. Bull. Entomol. Soc.
Amer. 29(3): 47-49.
Simpson, G. G. 1952. How many species? Evolution 6: 342.
Tangley, L. 1985. A new plan to conserve the earth’s biota. Bioscience 35(6): 334-341.
Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London. 157 p.
Wortman, J. 1985. NSF sets up Office of Biotechnology Coordination. Bioscience 35(6): 340-341.
TS
he rt * by :
este ei Sars vt
<a . ache Sa aes
Re tng
orl ae
ss 2 2
oe rt Ui ecg fate x
jis al
. 7
. ge ee: aed; ie ;
: ge 2 fiigeie thts ite nl Ces. a
| al Minton te . Cea, aoa eg
Sr ae ce ~ ot se eM yoehe 3955; Ban scapes | pcs iodine ABLE rites SHOR. i
atte cease al bi iokiciewe! | Weabcaitie coe
SECTION II.
ECOLOGICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Se ha 1
ee Pu ,
va Poa +i at ,
itis be
1 Cea rks Th
i ans j ant
Ae iv" wht
aT.
ea
mV” /
uy
Pekar erhane
; A ant
ae
i
Cane alk Flee | i gett
aig ha fos weft iy! ta
Ch ee irl ea
m4 iw sae rm | it
Pal tin ae
Ayia wl
: " OK i;
: att You F ? . :
Tue, Me ere - ' oi
ee ek ts ;
eat Rt eae
ACTS Ne Eid al 2
eg ea OR lee
1 rer
yy sia
d
To
iene, ats
- re)
oi
'
* eel Ni
he,
rr
eke aa
i
Prefatory Comments:
Some of the Activities
Leading to this Symposium
Michael Kosztarab
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
The following introductory comments are intended to provide background
information, especially on the activities of a planning committee for a national
biological survey that helped to lead to the Association of Systematics Collections’
(ASC) national meeting entitled ““Community Hearings on the National Biological
Survey’. Some of the practical applications anticipated from a national biological
survey are also discussed.
Earlier attempts to initiate similar surveys included efforts by government agen-
cies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Cameron, 1929) and Fish and
Wildlife Service (Gabrielson, 1940); by scientific organizations, such as the Flora
North America project sponsored by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists;
and by individual scientists, such as the Faunal Survey of North America by M.
D. F. Udvardy (personal communication, 1966) and the Insects of North America
project by Kosztarab (1975). Unfortunately, none of these attempts succeeded in
initiating the much needed comprehensive biological survey. In the United States,
biologists have described only one-third of the living organisms and their devel-
opmental stages (Kosztarab, 1984a). One scientist compared this deficiency to a
factory that is run without an inventory. Most developed nations have already
prepared or are developing such inventories. Because of the rapid decline of our
biota, the proposed biological survey is a national imperative and should be an
urgent interdisciplinary program supported by the federal government, as it is in
Canada (Danks, 1978), Australia (Bridgewater, 1984), and other countries.
The need for a biological survey, especially on insects and related poorly known
taxa, was recognized by the Standing Committee on Systematics Resources (SCSR)
of the Entomological Society of America (ESA). The Committee has been chaired
through the years by a number of systematists, including K. C. Kim, Lloyd Knut-
son, and myself. When my appointment as chairman terminated in 1983, I was
asked by the new SCSR chairman, Paul M. Marsh, and encouraged by the ESA
leadership to organize and chair a subcommittee within SCSR to promote the
initiation of an insect faunal survey, later named Insect Fauna of North America
23
24 KOSZTARAB
(IFNA) project. The work of our subcommittee led to the realization that there
are many other neglected taxa besides insects, and such a survey effort should be
expanded to the entire biota. I was encouraged to do so by a number of colleagues
representing a variety of biological disciplines, who, after reading my editorial in
Science (Feb. 3, 1984) joined in my efforts and offered to serve on a broadened
committee promoting a national survey of the entire biota. This led to the for-
mation of a planning committee for the national biological survey on March 7,
1984, at the National Museum of Natural History. At this meeting Charles Cush-
wa, a fish and wildlife specialist, and Nancy Morin, a botanist, were asked to
serve on the Executive Board with Chairman M. Kosztarab. They accepted this
task. I found special pleasure in working for two years with an active committee
which included a good representation of experts from different biological disci-
plines. The planning committee and the advisory board for the national biological
survey are now comprised of 21 scientists and administrators representing or
serving as resource persons for 15 organizations, 14 disciplines, and 11 govern-
ment agencies. They are listed at the end of this article.
The scientific community has endorsed the national biological survey concept
through 33 organizations representing over 200,000 scientists in the United States
(Table 1). During the past two years, members of the planning committee conferred
with and obtained a positive response from 11 U.S. government agencies and
direct endorsement from three of these. Supporting letters for a national biological
survey were also received from 14 leading life scientists and at least five U:S.
legislators. I also held meetings with six government agencies, five scientific or-
ganizations, and three U.S. legislators; in addition, I gave invitational and/or
volunteered oral reports on the national biological survey to 12 scientific/public
organizations including the Association of Systematics Collections; Ecological
Institute in Lund, Sweden; Entomological Society of America; Hungarian National
Museum; 17th International Congress of Entomology (with H. V. Danks); Na-
tional Research Council, Commission on Life Sciences; Natural Resources Coun-
cil of America; Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works;
Sierra Club, New River Group; Virginia Academy of Sciences; and the Ento-
mological Society of Washington.
To disseminate information on the proposed national biological survey during
1984 and 1985, at least 17 news coverages were provided; some through the
Associated Press by Dorothy Gast (1984, nationwide), three in Science (Kosztarab,
1984a and b; Gardner, 1984), and three in ASC Newsletter (Edwards, 1984; Kim,
1984; Kosztarab, 1984c). In addition, I gave three radio interviews (Los Angeles)
and one television (CBS Roanoke) interview.
Our joint efforts apparently bore fruit with the special interest recently dem-
onstrated in a national biological survey by a number of U.S. legislators, and by
the organization of two national meetings on this topic, one held in May of 1985
by the ASC, the other sponsored by the American Institute of Biological Sciences
and scheduled for 1986. Since the ASC meeting, the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution, Robert McC. Adams, has been quoted in the press as being interested
in a national biological survey (Holden, 1985).
To remove any doubts as to what a national biological survey could do for this
nation, I will summarize its anticipated practical benefits. The survey will:
PREFATORY COMMENTS 25
Table 1. Associations and other organizations endorsing a national biological survey through reso-
lutions or letters.
A. United States or Regional Organizations
. American Association for the Advancement of Science
. American Bryological and Lichenological Society
. American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Ornithological Union
. American Phytopathological Society
. American Society of Mammalogists
. American Society of Parasitologists
. American Society of Plant Taxonomists
. Association of Southeastern Biologists
10. Association of Systematics Collections
11. Ecological Society of America
12. Entomological Society of America
13. Entomological Society of Washington
14. Lepidopterists’ Society
15. Mycological Society of America
16. North American Benthological Society
17. North American Lake Management Society
18. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
19. Society of Nematologists
20. Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists
21. Virginia Academy of Sciences
22. Weed Science Society of America
B. State “Biological”? Surveys
. Biological Survey, New York State Museum
. Illinois Natural History Survey
. Kansas Biological Survey
. North Carolina Biological Survey
. Ohio Biological Survey
. Texas System of Natural Laboratories Inc. (A non-profit private organization)
nfaa tional and/or Foreign Organizations
. Australian Biological Resources Study (Bureau of Flora & Fauna)—Canberra
. Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods)— Ottawa
. Ecological Institute— Lund, Sweden
. Mexican Academy of Sciences (Academia de la Investigacion Cientifica)— Mexico City
. 17th International Congress of Entomology, 1984—Hamburg
OMANNHDMNHPWN
BAUR WNH
aA & WN —
1) Provide, for the first time, an inventory of the fauna and flora;
2) Generate needed identification manuals for the components of our biota
(the well-illustrated manuals will serve as teaching tools for secondary and higher
education);
3) Save money for this nation by providing nationwide coordination and avoid-
ing duplication of related efforts by federal, state, and private agencies;
4) Serve as a catalyst for needed work in this country and focus efforts first on
the endangered habitats, and second on the entire biota;
5) Establish a computerized data bank of our living natural resources and
interface it with existing data banks on related subjects (Olson, 1984);
6) Provide periodic reports to the Congress, government agencies, and U.S.
corporations on the status of the biota and aid government agencies by supplying
essential information on the biota;
26 KOSZTARAB
7) Promote biological control of pests by supplying adequate taxonomic, bi-
ological and distributional information on the natural enemies of pest organisms;
8) Help elucidate the effects of acid rain and other environmental pollutants
on the biota while supplying a base for monitoring changes in the composition
of the biota;
9) Assist U.S. corporations by providing data on the renewable natural re-
sources of this country, because no such comprehensive data base exists today
(Train, 1984);
10) Generate data needed to produce climatic profiles for species, by utilizing
records available on the species and on temperature and precipitation of the area
(such a system enables forecasting of the distribution of species and is in use in
Australia (Bridgewater, 1984));
11) Improve the national security of this country by providing new knowledge
on certain natural resources essential for human survival in a national emergency;
12) Enhance international coordination and cooperation on renewable natural
resources in North America and elsewhere (Danks and Kosztarab, in press) [a
number of recent conferences have called for such international cooperation
(Cushwa and Tungstall, 1983)];
13) Help to preserve our genetic and aesthetic natural resources by maintaining
biological diversity.
It is apparent from these many anticipated practical applications that a national
biological survey is a worthwhile, but extensive undertaking, and the consensus
among scientists is that the organization, initiation and implementation of a
national biological survey is a broad interdisciplinary, interinstitutional effort that
should involve the full range of biological sciences in this country.
The planning committee for the national biological survey project consists of:
Ross H. Arnett, Jr., Florida State Collection of Arthropods; *Charles T. Cushwa,
Fisheries and Wildlife Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(VPI&SU); *Stephen R. Edwards, ASC; *Lafayette F. Frederick, Howard Uni-
versity; *K. C. Kim, Pennsylvania State University; *Nancy Morin, Missouri
Botanical Garden; Robert L. Pienkowski, VPI&SU; Paul G. Risser, State Natural
History Survey of Illinois; *Amy Y. Rossman, Mycology Laboratory, Biosys-
tematics and Beneficial Insects Institute, USDA; *Thomas E. Wallenmaier, An-
imal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA; and *Michael Kosztarab,
VPI&SU, Chairman.
Advisors and/or Agency Consultants are: Peter Bridgewater, Bureau of Flora
and Fauna of Australia; Hugh V. Danks, Biological Survey of Canada; Allan
Hirsch and Rufus Morison, Environmental Protection Agency; Lloyd Knutson
and Howard E. Waterworth, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Robert C. Riley,
American Association for the Advancement of Science; **Stanwyn G. Shetler,
Smithsonian Institution; Richard N. Smith, Fish and Wildlife Service; and Nev-
enna Tsanoff Travis, Texas System of Natural Laboratories, Inc. (* indicates
present at the initial organizational meeting; ** ex-officio observer with George
M. Davis, President of ASC).
I express my heartfelt thanks to the persons listed and to those not listed who
in their own way assisted the national biological survey effort.
PREFATORY COMMENTS at
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following colleagues reviewed and improved my draft of this article: L. T.
Kok of this university, Lloyd Knutson and William L. Murphy at the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, and Stanwyn G. Shetler of the Smithsonian Institu-
tion.
LITERATURE CITED
Bridgewater, P. 1984. Australian Biological Resources Study. Annual Report 1983-1984. Bureau of
Flora and Fauna, Dept. Home Affairs and Environment. Canberra. 24 p.
Cameron, J. 1929. The Bureau of Biological Survey: Its history, activities and organizations. The
John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 339 p. (Reprinted 1974, Arno Press, New York).
Cushwa, C. T., & D. B. Tungstall. 1983. Wildlife in the United States: The U.S. response to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 1982 wildlife questionnaire. In: Proc.
of Internat. Confer. Renewable Resource Inventories for Monitoring Changes and Trends. Cor-
vallis, OR, SAF 83-14: 43-44.
Danks, H. V. (ed.) 1978. Canada and its insect fauna. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Canada No. 108: 573
p.
Danks, H. V., & M. Kosztarab. In press. Biological surveys. In: Biosystematic services in entomology.
Proc. of a Symposium held at the 17th International Congress of Entomology, Hamburg. (38 p.
ms.)
Edwards, S. R. 1984. A national biological survey. ASC Newsletter 12(1): 6.
Gabrielson, I. N. 1940. Bureau of Biological Survey, Jn: Anonymous, Annual report of the Secretary
of the Interior. U.S. Department of Interior. 528 p.
Gardner, A. L. 1984. Biological survey. Science 224: 1384.
Gast, D. 1984. VPI professor urges U.S. biological survey. Washington Post, Virginia Edition. July
17, p. B-3.
Holden, C. 1985. New directions for the Smithsonian. Science 228: 1512-1513.
Kim, K. C. 1984. Current programs of the Council of Applied Systematics. ASC Newsletter 12(4):
29-30.
Kosztarab, M. 1975. Role of systematics collections in pest management. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer.
21(2): 95-98.
Kosztarab, M. 1984a. A biological survey of the United States. Science 223: 443.
Kosztarab, M. 1984b. (Untitled) Science 224: 1384. (A response to Gardner’s letter).
Kosztarab, M. 1984c. Abstract from the symposium “The systematics community: priorities for the
next decade’’. ASC Newsletter 12(6): 55.
Olson, R. J. 1984. Review of existing environmental and natural resource data bases. Oak Ridge
Nat. Lab., Environmental Sci. Div., Publ. No. 2297: 61 p.
Train, R. E. 1984. Executive summary. In: Corporate use of information regarding natural resources
and environmental quality. World Wildlife Fund-U.S. 3 p.
eran
Ce at
ee
Systematics and Long-range
Ecologic Research
Barry Chernoff
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
Abstract: A national biological survey is considered in the context of sys-
tematic and long-range ecologic research, and some of the fundamental rela-
tionships between ecology and systematics are discussed. The degree to which
we know the biota of the United States is a function of the included areas
because of the discrepancy of knowledge among geographic regions. Knowledge
among groups of organisms is also shown to be disproportionate. Moreover,
the foundation of knowledge even for well-studied organisms may be rather
porous. Some of the benefits of long-term ecological research include the ability
to discern pattern from noise and the ability to determine the rather complex,
temporally variable, responses of ecosystems. The overwhelming rationale for
a national biological survey resides in the necessity to protect our biota. The
capacity of our management policies to accomplish this depends ultimately
upon sound systematic and ecologic studies.
Keywords: National Biological Survey, Systematics, Ecology, Phylogenet-
ics, Evolution, Conservation, Ecosystem, Cryptic Species.
INTRODUCTION
During the last several decades there has been increasing emphasis by system-
atists and ecologists on ecosystems outside of the continental United States, es-
pecially in tropical areas. Kosztarab (1984) has questioned our knowledge re-
garding native organisms of the United States, and whether or not a national
biological survey is warranted. In this paper, I focus upon the systematic and
ecologic imperatives for a national biological survey. My purpose is not to debate
the relative importance of acquiring knowledge on faunas, floras and ecosystems
within or beyond the borders of the United States. Studies on all such systems
are essential, if not critical. For example, as much as 245,000 sq. km of tropical
forests is being destroyed annually (Myers, 1979). A national biological survey
should not be instituted at the expense of existing programs. Reprogramming will
destroy the basis for crucial, world-wide scientific research performed by U.S.
scientists; such a result would be both unfortunate and unacceptable.
Perhaps the single most important reason to compel the implementation of a
national biological survey is conservation. To ensure the continuance of our native
fauna and flora, we need to know the taxa that are present as well as their habits
and requirements. Sound management policy must be based upon sound system-
29
30 CHERNOFF
atic and long-range ecologic studies. At the same time, changing land-use patterns
within the United States make the job more difficult as ecosystems become ever
more fragmented. A national biological survey would serve as a stimulus and
directive for particular scientific endeavors to be carried out locally.
This paper will address four main issues in the context of a national biological
survey. 1. What is the fundamental relationship between systematic and ecologic
research? 2. How well do we know the organisms of the United States? In general,
what is the basis for our systematic knowledge? 3. What are the benefits of long-
term ecologic studies? 4. What special conservation considerations must be ad-
dressed?
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SYSTEMATICS AND ECOLOGY
Systematics and ecology are two branches of the biological sciences that have
their origins in the field of natural history. Systematics and ecology together
comprise a large portion of what is today recognized as comparative and evolu-
tionary biology. Both disciplines seek to discover and explain patterns found in
the natural world—one relative to genealogies and the other relative to organismic
interactions. Alexander (1969) and Eldredge and Cracraft (1980) noted that com-
parative biology allows us to analyze and capture biotic patterns from which
process-oriented theories may be inferred. Systematics and ecology are funda-
mentally interrelated. Interpretations in each discipline often depend upon in-
formation or a frame of reference from the other. In order to understand their
relationships we must first understand their definitions.
Systematics has been defined in several ways. During the last two decades, the
modern redefinition of the term has been provided by Simpson (1961): ““System-
atics is the scientific study of the kinds and diversity of organisms and of any and
all relationships among them.”’ Mayr (1969) provides a slight shortcut: systematics
is the science of the diversity of organisms. Interestingly, neither Simpson (1961)
nor Mayr (1969) restricted ‘relationship’ to a phylogenetic perspective. Rather,
they conceive ‘relationship’ to include, as stated by Mayr (1969), “‘all biological
relationships among organisms.” Eldredge and Cracraft (1980) restricted the sense
of the term to include only the study of “‘orderly”’ or hierarchical patterns found
in nature. Wiley (1981) basically agrees with Eldredge and Cracraft, but was more
loquacious: “‘Systematics is the study of organismic diversity as that diversity is
relevant to some specified kind of relationship thought to exist among populations,
species, or higher taxa.”’ Cracraft and Eldredge, Wiley and others require rela-
tionships or hierarchies to be phylogenetic (i.e., to reflect genealogies), and I agree.
Nonetheless, I prefer a slightly broader concept of systematics that embodies three
aspects: (i) the discovery and identification of organismic diversity; (ii) the esti-
mation of phylogenetic relationships among organisms: and (ili) the study of
evolutionary processes that account for such phylogenetic patterns and diversity.
Taxonomy is generally considered to comprise the theory and practice of clas-
sifying organisms. Thus, taxonomy is ancillary to systematics, regardless of the
particular classification theory (e.g., evolutionary, phenetic or phylogenetic).
There is little, if any, disagreement over the meaning of ecology. The term
denotes the interrelationships among organisms and their habitats. Patterns emerge
from these interrelationships, whether from interspecific interactions, diversity
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH 31
and complexity of species assemblages, or the flow of energy and nutrients through
an ecosystem (Ricklefs, 1973). Patterns then become the objects of study to elu-
cidate the processes underlying them. Exceptions to this general scenario comprise
those studies that are purely descriptive and not comparative (e.g., an autecologic
study of one species in one locality during one time period): general patterns are
not produced and general processes cannot be elucidated.
There are three main relationships between ecology and systematics: (i) process-
level inferences depend upon phylogenetic patterns; (11) phenotypic expression
and character covariances are a joint function of genealogical and ecologic factors;
and (111) proper species identifications provide both the basis and predictions for
ecologic studies. The first relationship is best viewed in the context of patterns
and processes. Process is causally prior to pattern; without process there can be
no pattern. For example, ancestor-descendant or parent-offspring relationships
give rise to lineages. Inferences about evolutionary and many ecologic processes
require patterns as reference systems. Patterns provide directionality for studies
of processes—a change in the perceived pattern usually requires a change in the
conclusion about process (Lauder, 1981; Fink, 1982). Consider the heterochronic
processes of development that comprise paedomorphosis. Without an estimate
of phylogeny, there is no way a priori to distinguish paedomorphosis from a mere
primitive condition. That is, to infer that developmental sequences were somehow
truncated or deleted, one needs to establish that the sequences were already present
in the lineage (for further discussion see Fink, 1982, and Bookstein et al., 1985,
in comparison to Alberch et al., 1979). |
Gould and Vrba (1982) have discussed the dependence of adaptation as a
conclusion upon the phylogenetic distribution of some trait. The morphological,
physiological or behavioral traits that allow a species to survive and reproduce
successfully in particular environments are not adaptations of the species if the
traits were present in the common ancestor of the species and its closest relative.
That is, organisms may be able to meet the demands of their environments by
coopting ancestral adaptations. For example, Smith (1981) has argued that desert
pupfishes (genus Cyprinodon) are not necessarily adapted to desert conditions;
rather, they survive because of ancestral physiological tolerances to harsh estuarine
environments.
Treatments of other topics in the ecologic or evolutionary literature have also
been weakened by lack of attention to phylogenetic patterns. For example, ge-
nealogical information is crucial to inferences about taxon cycles of the West
Indian avifauna (Ricklefs and Cox, 1972); their model requires that the end
products of the cycle are in fact the most derived members of their lineages.
Arguments for or against ecologic character displacement in Darwin’s finches
should include a genealogic perspective, but they do not (Grant and Schluter,
1984; Simberloff, 1984; and references therein; although Simberloff, 1983 came
close to admitting this point). Lastly, Brooks (1979), Brooks et al. (1981), and
Mitter and Brooks (1983) showed that inferences about host-parasite coevolution
are determined most appropriately from the evolutionary relationships of both
hosts and their parasites.
The second relationship acknowledges the joint effects of genealogic or ecologic
factors upon character expression and covariance. The phenotypes of a species
32 CHERNOFF
and their covariances may be partitioned into historic (i.e., genealogic, phyloge-
netic) and non-historic (i.e., ecologic, environmental) components, plus random
noise (uncorrelated variation and measurement error). In order to account for the
ecologic component of character expression or covariance we must first factor out
the historic component; the converse is also true. Non-genealogical, environ-
mental or ecologic affects upon character expression are well documented across
a broad spectrum of organisms (e.g., Gilbert, 1966; Kreuger and Dodson, 1981;
Chernoff, 1982; James, 1983; Rathke, 1984; and references therein). These pro-
cesses may have such an overriding effect upon character expression that the
phylogenetic signal is obscured (Chernoff, 1982). Conversely, phylogenetic con-
straints upon ecologic expression must also be accounted for before the proper
ecologic signal can be analyzed (e.g., Dunham et al., 1979; Stearns, 1984, but see
Dunham and Miles, 1985, for corrections). The ecology of an organism is, in part,
a function of its phenotype, as its phenotype is, in part, a function of its ecology.
Neither systematists nor ecologists should lose sight of this fundamental depen-
dence.
The third and most obvious relationship between ecology and systematics con-
cerns species recognition and identification. Ecologic data, such as preferences of
food, habitats, breeding sites and times, etc., can provide important insights into
the composition and population structure of species. Precise delineation of species
is particularly important for ecologic or environmental research. For example, a
polychaete worm of the genus Capitella had long been used as an ecologic standard
for marine pollution studies until Grassle and Grassle (1976) discovered allozym-
ically that what was thought to be one species was actually six. Each of the six
had differing life histories, thus confounding former studies on the natural vari-
ation of a single species.
The last two points raise the issue of reciprocal illumination or predictivity. To
a certain extent systematic or ecologic findings can provide predictions for the
other discipline. For example, Eberhard (1982) used the characteristics of the
webs and web-building behaviors to make predictions about the relationships of
orb-weaving spiders. Similarly, variation in life-history traits, in part, has led
Hoagland (1984) to question the integrity of the gastropod species, Crepidula
““convexa’. Systematists’ interpretations of species boundaries are generally used
by ecologists as the basis for distinguishing their units of study. Elevation to
specific status of once-synonymized species may serve as a prediction of ecologic
difference (e.g., habitat and feeding preferences and interspecific competition were
discovered between two species of silverside fishes by Lucas, 1978, after the second
species was recognized as distinct from the first by Johnson, 1975). An hypothesis
related to the ecology of some species could also be formulated from the phylo-
genetic distribution of the ecologies of its relatives. For example, an organism
that is most closely related to a group of sand burrowers might also be expected
to be a sand burrower.
There are, however, limitations to the extent to which predictions across dis-
ciplines can be made. Pitfalls can result from variations or polymorphisms of
ecologic characteristics that are not indicative of species-level differences. For
example, environmental conditions can lead to semelparous or iteroparous re-
productive cycles among populations of a species (Leggett and Carscadden, 1978),
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH 33
to cyclical parthenogenesis (Lynch, 1984), or to alternative mating strategies
(Dominey, 1984). Nonetheless, ecologic variations or polymorphisms exhibited
by a species can be discerned with the same attention given to variation in mor-
phologic or genetic traits.
A more insidious pitfall inheres in the assumption that members of higher taxa
(e.g., genera, families) share common ecologies or inhabit the same ecologic niche
or ‘adaptive zone’. This assumption is founded in the belief that families and
genera, or higher taxa in general, “‘owe their origin to the invasion of this zone
by a founder species and to the subsequent active and adaptive radiation which
usually follows a successful adaptive shift...”’ (Mayr, 1969; emphasis mine). Mayr’s
(1969) definition of adaptive radiation (“Evolutionary divergence of members of
a single phyletic line into a series of rather different niches or adaptive zones.’’)
thus, contradicts his notions of ecologic similarity within a higher taxon. But even
beyond this difficulty with definitions, there seems to be little evidence that mem-
bers of higher taxa have common ecologies (Selander, 1969). For example, con-
sider the different feeding and nesting ecologies of the Galapagos finches within
each of the genera Geospiza or Camarhyncus (Lack, 1947). The sandpiper genus
Calidris contains species that feed in the uplands and others that feed in shallow
open water (J. P. Myers, pers. comm.). The atherinid fish genus Atherinella, a
monophyletic group, contains species that strain plankton, others that are strictly
piscivorous, as well as purely marine species and species that live in high elevation
streams (Chernoff, 1983). In the euphorbaceous plant genus Macaranga, many
species are strictly early-succession light-demanding pioneers, while others are
shade-requiring late-climax rainforest species (Whitmore, 1973). Many other ex-
amples could be cited. Unfortunately, this ecologic-similarity criterion has been
applied to the formation of higher categories with the result of overly-split or
unnatural groups. For example, the crab-plover (Dromas), and the pratincoles
and coursers (Glareola, Stiltia, Rhinoptilus) have usually been allied with the
plovers, in part because of common ecologies; DNA-DNA hybridization data
show instead that the crab-plover, pratincoles and coursers are most closely related
to gulls, terns, jaegers, skimmers and auks (Sibley and Ahlquist, in press). The
use of ecologic characters in the formation of systematic relationships should, at
best, be viewed with the same suspicion as morphological characters (Cain, 1959;
Selander, 1969). Members of higher taxa need only be monophyletic (i.e., each
other’s closest relatives). The ability to predict the ecology of a taxon should thus
be based upon the phylogenetic distribution of ecologies, rather than on an ar-
bitrary assumption of similarity. This point has important consequences for man-
aging ecosystems and will be discussed in the conservation section below.
SYSTEMATIC IMPERATIVE
“Scientific truth is not a dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative
entity...the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the intensity
of scientific effort.’” Robert M. Pirsig (1974)
The systematic imperative for a national biological survey can be supported by
two lines of reasoning. The first derives from how well the fauna and flora of the
United States are known. I will elaborate this aspect from the following perspec-
34 CHERNOFF
tives: (i) the geographic limits of the national biological survey; (11) the distribution
of scientific effort across different groups of organisms; and (ili) the relation be-
tween cryptic species and modern systematic techniques. The second reason con-
cerns the rate of man-induced extinctions. This latter topic will be addressed in
the section on conservation.
Our knowledge of the biota of the United States is in part dependent upon the
geography that we choose to consider. In many ways we know the organisms in
the northeastern U.S. better than we do those of the Southwest, and far better
than those that inhabit Hawai. A national biological survey should be just that:
national. It should, therefore, include the fauna and flora of the continental United
States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the oceans and bottoms contained within U.S. ter-
ritorial waters. Whether or not the survey should include U.S. territories and
protectorates (e.g., American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands)
is another matter and beyond the scope of this paper.
To demonstrate better the relationship between knowledge and geography, con-
sider the Orthoptera of the U.S. (D. Otte, pers. comm.). If we accept current
schemes, possibly less than 20% of the continental U.S. fauna remains unde-
scribed. For Hawaiian crickets, however, there were 30 described species as of
1950; now there are about 200 described forms and the number could rise to as
many as 1,000 species. In general, the inclusion of Hawaii will lower the level of
our knowledge regarding many groups of organisms. The Hawaiian example serves
to illustrate why provisions should be made to target relatively unknown regions
for special study. Intensive efforts in such regions would provide a large bulk of
critical information in an efficient manner.
There are two ways of viewing the current state of knowledge regarding the
biota of the United States, independent of geography. One involves estimates of
what is described versus what we estimate to exist; the other is to focus upon the
relative information available among groups of organisms. Estimating the size of
the biota both for particular systematic groups (e.g., chironomids) or for the United
States as a whole is almost an impossible task. To do so requires extrapolations
for which we have no data. How can we estimate the numbers of organisms that
we have yet to discover? This is different from known taxa which are merely
undescribed. Such species have been discovered, identified and only lack formal
description. For example, there is a list of undescribed fishes from the United
States (Jenkins, 1976), many of which have been known to ichthyologists for
decades. Estimates of the size of the U.S. ichthyofauna would include these un-
described but known species but would not include the new taxa we may someday
discover.
What we do know about the U.S. biota, even on a cursory level, is incommen-
surate across groups of organisms. As a result there are huge gaps in the published
systematic coverage of the biota. For some groups, such as birds, there have been
intensive studies on the species of the United States and our knowledge appears
to be reasonably complete. For other groups, much exploration is still required.
For example, Hodges (1976) noted that even for certain groups of insects, such
as Symphyta or Formicidae, where more than 75% of adult specimens from North
America can be assigned to described species, less than 10% of the larval specimens
can be assigned. Between 400 and 600 new diatom taxa have been described each
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH 35
year since 1965 (C. W. Reimer, pers. comm.), and there is little indication that
the trend will diminish. If anything, the application of scanning electron micros-
copy (e.g., Qi et al., 1982) and multivariate statistics (e.g., Theriot and Stoermer,
1982) will likely increase the diatom flora. Morphologic and genetic studies of
daphnids demonstrate clearly that several recognized species are polyspecific (e.g.,
Hebert, 1978; Hebert and Crease, 1980). When such “well studied’’ organisms
as Daphnia magna or D. pulex present fundamental taxonomic problems, the
systematic imperative for a national biological survey becomes ever more clear.
Nonetheless, there are groups for which we lack even the fundamental taxonomic
knowledge to know where the problems lie. Major systematic efforts are needed
in groups such as rotifers, nematodes, diptera, hemipterans, beetles, mites, mis-
tletoes and many, many more. Thus we should ensure, by way of funding, that
systematic studies of the poorly known groups will be undertaken.
Beyond the poorly known groups, our systematic knowledge for many other
taxa is too inadequate or in such a state of turmoil that published taxonomies are
wholly unacceptable. An important case in point is that of the relatively common
freshwater unionid bivalves of North America (ca. 300 species in the U.S.; A.
Bogan, pers. comm.). Starnes and Bogan (1982) have noted that for the fauna
inhabiting a tributary of the Cumberland River, Kentucky, approximately 70%
have undergone taxonomic revision since 1914. Researchers are only now begin-
ning to understand previous taxonomies, compare types (where extant) and apply
names on a consistent scientific basis (Starnes and Bogan, 1982; Bogan and Par-
malee, 1983; Bogan et al., 1984). The taxonomic chaos for unionids has arisen,
in part, because of inconsistent acceptance or rejection of Rafinesque’s nomen-
clature (he described 34 genera and subgenera, 124 species and 55 varieties; Bogan
et al., 1984). Much work remains to be done before a well formulated taxonomy
can be applied. Hodges (1976) has described serious limitations to the nomen-
clature applied to species of Lepidoptera. Apparently Edward Meyrick, who died
in 1938, described more than 15,000 species but “‘refused to use a microscope
until his later years, and he refused to acknowledge that genital characters where
worthwhile. He based much of his classification on the venation as seen through
a hand lens.”” The Compositae (Asteraceae) is one of the three or four largest
families of plants with 12,000 to 14,000 species worldwide. The Compositae
contains perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 species within the U.S. (B. Stone, pers. comm.),
and is exceedingly abundant in the Western U.S.; these are the sunflowers, asters,
daisies, etc. Despite their ubiquity and familiarity, the classificaion of the Com-
positae is being challenged seriously, especially at the generic level (see symposium
in Taxon, vol. 34, no.1, February, 1985; note papers by Cronquist, 1985, and
Funk, 1985). Important realignments and taxonomic change within the Com-
positae are being proposed; use of the present classification will only be misleading.
Recent studies utilizing soft anatomy, multivariate analysis and molecular genetics
are providing significant changes in molluscan systematics (e.g., Davis et al., 1982;
Davis, 1983). The last example to demonstrate that not all common organisms
have stable or ecologically-usable taxonomies is that of the leopard frogs of North
America. As noted by Hillis et al. (1983), the Rana pipiens complex has been a
modern biological enigma. Before 1900, 12 species were described; in the 1940’s
and 1950’s only four species were recognized; today the complex contains more
36 CHERNOFF
than 20 species, eight of which are in the process of being described (Hillis et al.,
1983). Nonetheless, new species of ranids are still being discovered within the
United States (e.g., Rana okaloosae Moler, 1985). Problems like these may be
solved, in part, by more synthetic or monographic treatments. Even regional
taxonomies and keys would provide aid to those working with the biota. As Slater
(1981) lamented: “After 100 years of distinguished work in Entomology one really
still does not know the distribution within a state of most of the insect fauna.
There is still no ‘Insects of Iowa’ series in being or in progress to my knowledge.”
The inadequacy of our systematic knowledge may be more pervasive than
indicated by the few examples given above. Evaluations of species boundaries
should attend to variability: of individuals within populations, among populations
and of the characters overall. In certain instances character heritabilities may need
to be examined in order to determine the meaning of the variation (Chernoff,
1982). Because the philosophy of systematics is always changing, we have inherited
taxonomies for many groups largely devoid of attention to variability or with
narrower concepts of species limits. For example in 1859, Charles Girard described
the channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, four times; three of the descriptions appear
in the same paper. Furthermore, there are all too many examples, older and
modern, of systematic decisions focused upon one or several ‘“‘key” characters.
As Hodges (1976) observed for the systematics of Lepidoptera: ““To my knowledge
species vary in nearly all characters, and for this reason the male or female genitalia
sometimes are no more final for specific determination than the shading of the
color pattern, wing length, or other characters.’ The point is that because of the
enormity of the task facing systematists, adequate assessment of variability for
all taxa will never be realized. As such, geographic variants, biotypes, polymor-
phisms and environmentally induced characteristics will result in an over-esti-
mation of the number of valid species.
The last aspects of the systematic imperative for a national biological survey
involve cryptic species and new technologies. As Pirsig’s insight suggests, some
of the “species” we accept at face value may dissolve under closer scrutiny. Thus
we must deal with cryptic species, which have little to do with mimicry or crypsis.
Rather, cryptic species have been defined as those which are difficult to recognize
on the basis of generally used morphological criteria (Walker, 1964). Walker goes
on to note that: “The term sibling species is frequently used for the same phe-
nomenon, but ‘sibling’ connotes a more recent common ancestry than is the case
of species that are not ‘sibling.’ Since morphological indistinctness and recentness
of common ancestry are not perfectly correlated, ‘cryptic’ is more descriptive than
‘sibling’... [italics his]. New technologies (i.e., scanning electron microscopes,
statistical analyses, molecular genetics) allow us to scrutinize our organisms ever
more closely and often lead to the discovery of cryptic species. Cryptic species
are also discovered, however, when systematists go beyond the usual criteria in
examining their organisms, whether the criteria are morphological, biochemical,
behavioral, etc. Davis (1983) concluded that convergent evolution of the mol-
luscan shell has masked the genetic and anatomical differences among many
species.
It is impossible to estimate how many of the species presently recognized are
actually composites of two or more cryptic species. However, Walker (1964) states
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH ST
that nearly one-fourth of the species of ensiferan Orthoptera are cryptic. Whether
this high percentage is applicable to other groups remains to be demonstrated.
Recognition of cryptic species seems to be independent of a systematist’s definition
of the species concept because the evidence obtained is usually so persuasive that
little doubt remains. An interesting generality emerges from the various examples
of cryptic species: once the “hidden” species-defining characteristics have been
discovered, subtle but consistent differences among “‘conventional’’ traits fre-
quently become recognizable. Cryptic species or forms can be found among all
groups of organisms. Examples range from the more obvious to the subtle, and
have been discovered using such characteristics as genitalic morphology (Burns,
1984), calling songs (Walker, 1964), steam-volatile terpenoids (Adams, 1983),
osteology and shape analysis (Chernoff et al., 1982), allozymes (Davis and Fuller,
1981; Davis, 1983; Hoagland, 1984), 2-D protein patterns and isozymes (Ferris
et al., 1985; Huettel et al., 1984), and early life stages (Hoagland, 1984).
In conclusion, a national biological survey is needed from a systematic per-
spective because fundamental information is lacking. The application of effort on
the biota of the United States is misapplied, and basic knowledge across groups
of organisms is very inconsistent. As a result there are groups of organisms and
geographic regions for which our knowledge is poor to non-existent. Work is
needed in some better-studied taxa because the existing systematics are unreliable
overall. Lastly, general systematic surveys are needed that employ methods (e.g.,
molecular genetics, morphometrics) sensitive enough to identify cryptic species.
At the very least, general collections should be archived to allow for traditional
and new approaches. Studies not now conceived may be important in the future.
LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH
The ecologic necessities for a national biological survey are as compelling as
those from a systematic perspective. Some ecologic research can be performed in
the laboratory, but most studies depend upon active programs carried out in the
field. As the number of undisturbed field sites in the United States diminishes,
field programs become ever more hampered. Yet our knowledge of the ecologies
and life histories of the biota of the United States is far from complete. There are
even agricultural pests for which adequate life history information does not exist.
Like systematics, ecology is a discipline of hierarchic levels. For example, studies
can be directed at the level of the single species, species interactions, community
organization, behavior and evolution of entire ecosystems, or ecosystem inter-
actions. It is not sufficient to know the names, relationships and distribution of
organisms, we must also know their biologies: that is, how they interact with their
physical environment, what their population biologies are, and how they interact
with other species (e.g., competition, predation, food source). Although I am not
an ecologist, I suspect that like systematics, our ecologic knowledge across groups
of organisms, geographic regions and ecosystems is inconsistent.
The question at hand, though, concerns the necessity for long-range ecologic
research. The length of time devoted to long range studies should be scaled to the
needs of the particular question in relation to the response time of the organisms
or the ecosystem (Tilman, 1982)—some systems may require only hours (e.g.,
bacteria) while others may require years (e.g., trees). Two of the most fundamental
38 CHERNOFF
considerations, however, are that the studies be of sufficient duration to: (i) de-
cipher pattern from noise, and (1i) distinguish the total shape of the pattern (Likens
et al., 1977; Bormann and Likens, 1979).
Long-term research on the Hubbard Brook ecosystem in the northeastern United
States (Likens, et al., 1977; Bormann and Likens, 1979) provides beautiful ex-
amples of how ecologic conclusions would change if sampled over a shorter time-
span. Consider their compilation of the responses of a northern hardwood forest
to clear-cutting (Figure 1). If one were to conduct short term studies (e.g., one to
three years), one would arrive at very different conclusions dependent upon how
many years after clear-cutting the studies were performed. Biological systems are
complex and do not necessarily respond linearly with respect to time (e.g., see
Mooney and Gulmon, 1983; and Gill, 1980). Often biological systems present an
initial lagged response. For example, Gaylord and Hansen (1983) found the re-
sponse-time of trout productivity to lag three to four years after the sediment
load of streams had been increased; had they quit after two years they would have
concluded erroneously that increasing sediment load had no significant effect.
The Long-Term Ecological Research Program was implemented by the National
Science Foundation to provide a solution to the problems mentioned above as
well as to alleviate the counterproductive activities of competing for funding on
a short-term basis. The rationale, background, implementation and goals of the
Long-Term Ecological Research Program is given in a cogent article by Callahan
(1984). The program now supports research at 11 sites comprising the following
habitats: coniferous forest, oak savannah, deciduous forest, salt marsh—estuary,
desert, tall-grass prairie, large rivers, alpine tundra—lakes, northern lakes, fresh-
water swamp, and short-grass prairie. Most notable among ecosystems not rep-
resented for long-term research are marine communities, especially coral reefs.
Callahan (1984) noted that the successful proposals, to date, could be categorized
as follows: i) “the effects of physical environmental variables on the structure and
the change in the structure of biotic communities;”’ ii) “the processes by which
herbivorous populations are regulated;” iii) “‘the processes that regulate the rates
of accumulation and transport of decomposing organic matter;”’ iv) “the processes
that influence the rates at which inorganic nutrients are taken up, utilized, and
released by the biota;” and v) “the role played by major disturbances in main-
taining or changing the character of ecosystems.”
The examples and arguments presented above demonstrate clearly that long-
range ecologic research should continue to be implemented and expanded on the
various ecosystems and organisms in the United States. Shorter-term studies,
while valuable as pilots, can lead to erroneous conclusions when extrapolated to
a longer time span. Such errors could have grave consequences for management
and conservation policies.
CONSERVATION AND CONCLUSIONS
“One of the most profound developments in the application of ecology to
biological conservation has been the recognition that virtually all natural hab-
itats or reserves are destined to resemble islands....”” Wilcox (1980)
This paper has presented the systematic and ecologic imperatives for a national
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH 39
Living biomass
@)
100 Dead wood
50
w
Bel
=e
POLES
~”
”
w
e 50
i) Forest floor
mM
Total biomass
"6 Miele Ve: 100
Years After Clear-—Cutting
Fig. 1. Schematic of response of northern hardwood forest to clear-cutting; modified from Bormann
and Likens (1979: figure 1-10).
biological survey. Recommendations based upon the arguments given above are
presented in the next section. I would like to present briefly some of the conser-
vation implications ofa survey, because conservation may be the most compelling
reason for the institution of such a survey (see also Kosztarab, 1984).
As growth and development continually fragment U.S. wilderness areas, the
theories of island biogeography and extinction take on a sudden urgency for the
biota. The thought of natural habitats as islands even applies to ocean bottoms
40 CHERNOFF
and coastal waters. Consider for example the sewage dumped into the New York
Bight in the migratory path of flounders and lobsters, or a polluted bay separating
cleaner waters to the north and south. The ecology of fragmented environments
is precarious and not all organisms can adapt to limited home ranges (Soule and
Wilcox, 1980; Whitcomb et al., 1981). Knowledge of population biology becomes
critical because survival depends upon such parameters as effective population
size, growth and maturation rates, density-dependent mortality, and recruitment.
Recent experimental studies (e.g., Abele, 1984; Wilbur and Travis, 1984) dem-
onstrate the changes and instabilities in community composition of “‘island’’ or
‘‘fragmented”’ areas. Research is needed to discover what minimum areas or
combination of fragments are necessary to conserve natural diversity (Diamond,
1980; Whitcomb et al., 1981).
At the same time, changing habitats and species compositions demonstrate the
immediate need for systematic studies. Man-induced ecologic pressures can alter
the phenotypes and genotypes of organisms (e.g., Biston betularia; see Franklin,
1980). Systematists will have to seriously consider the consequences of changes
in lineages of organisms that have occurred since habitat alteration. Temporal
studies and comparisons with older museum specimens are crucial.
Management policies designed to conserve the national biota must be based
upon thorough systematic and ecologic studies. Counter to the contention of
Hirsch (this volume), I believe it is impossible to “overstate the need for taxonomic
data.”’ In an absolute sense, how can we manage or preserve that which we do
not know? The selective component or exemplar approach to conservation may
be affordable, but is nonetheless flawed. Decisions made on the basis of one or
several components (organisms) of an ecosystem tend to minimize or exclude all
the other components. Reconsider the above discussion concerning the ability to
predict the ecologies of related species based upon generic- or family-level clas-
sification. If one of the exemplars used for managing a coastal shore zone includes
only open-water feeding species of sandpiper, then subsequent decisions may
endanger the upland feeding species. The vulnerability of the target-organism
approach also depends entirely upon substantial systematic data. Reconsider the
example of the marine polychaete worm that was used as a primary indicator of
pollution—it turned out to be a complex of six species (Grassle and Grassle, 1976).
Former predictions based upon variation in life history were thus rendered base-
less. The ability to identify all the organisms within a region, to know their
ecologies and interactions, will probably never be achieved. However, we still
must admit that decisions based upon data, as complete as possible, will be
sounder than the selective target-organism approach. What available funds will
allow us to accomplish differs significantly from what is truly “best”. This dis-
tinction should always be acknowledged.
The consequences of the changing landscape in the United States, and the rest
of the world, are embodied in two words: endangerment and extinction. There
are too few regional studies on endangered and extinct species (e.g., Linzey, 1979).
The current species survival status of certain groups such as large mammals, birds
and fishes have been closely monitored by specialists (e.g., Myers, 1979; or Ono
et al., 1983, among others); their efforts must continue. But what of the more
obscure groups of organisms? How fast are they disappearing? A national bio-
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH 4]
logical survey would contribute importantly to answering these questions and thus
help in conserving our biota.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A national biological survey should include the continental United States,
Alaska, Hawaii and oceans and bottoms within U.S. territorial limits. Geo-
political limitations should not be imposed on studies of organisms that
range naturally beyond U.S. borders.
2. Efforts should be taken to ensure systematic and ecologic coverage of poorly
known groups and poorly studied regions.
3. Monographic or synthetic studies should be encouraged, as well as the
production of regional faunas and floras, including keys. Systematic studies
should, when possible, combine comprehensive morphological, biochem-
ical and molecular genetic analyses.
4. A national biological survey should incorporate a comprehensive archival
program that will accommodate morphological and biochemical analyses,
and to the extent practical, also include photographic records. This program
should archive all life-history stages of organisms, with particular attention
to the early stages.
5. A national biological survey should integrate systematic and ecologic in-
formation by funding multidisciplinary teams.
6. Additional ecosystems should be selected for enhanced long-term ecologic
and systematic research. The areas should be large enough to incorporate
experimental and control subregions. The research activity should be in-
tensive, with multidisciplinary teams. The ecologic effects of ecosystem
fragmentation should be considered.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people contributed in important ways to the completion of this manu-
script; I am most grateful to all of them. The following provided literature and
took time from their valuable research to discuss aspects of this paper with me:
A. Bogan, G. M. Davis, F. B. Gill, C. E. Goulden, J. A. Hendrickson, K. E.
Hoagland, L. Knutson, R. E. Moeller, J. P. Myers, D. Otte, C. W. Reimer, C. L.
Smart, W. F. Smith-Vaniz, B. Stone, A. Tessier, and T. Uzzell. L. Knutson, W.
F. Smith-Vaniz, B. Stone, and T. Uzzell provided many important criticisms of
the manuscript. I would like to thank the conference organizers and editors of the
volume, K. C. Kim and L. Knutson, as well as the Association of Systematics
Collections for hosting the symposium and providing the vehicle for its publi-
cation. I am also grateful to President T. P. Bennett, M. B. Fischer, and G. M.
Davis of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for helping to make
my participation possible.
LITERATURE CITED
Abele, L. G. 1984. Biogeography, colonization, and experimental community structure of coral-
associated crustaceans. Jn: D. R. Strong et al. (eds.) Ecological communities: conceptual issues
and the evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey.
Adams, R. P. 1983. Infraspecific terpenoid variation in Juniperus scopulorum: evidence for Pleis-
tocene refugia and recolonization in western North America. Taxon 32: 30-46.
42 CHERNOFF
Alberch, P., S. J. Gould, G. F. Oster & D. B. Wake. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny.
Paleobiology 5: 296-317.
Alexander, G. R. & E. A. Hansen. 1983. Effects of sand bed load sediment on a brooktrout population.
Michigan Dept. Nat. Resources Fish. Research Report No. 1906, 50 p.
Alexander, R. D. 1969. Comparative animal behavior and systematics. In: Systematic biology.
Proceedings of an international conference. Nat. Acad. of Sci. Publ. 1692, Washington, DC.
Bogan, A. E. & P. W. Parmalee. 1983. The Mollusks. Tennessee’s Rare Wildlife, Volume II. Tenn.
Wildl. Resources Agency. 123 p.
Bogan, A. E., L. B. Starnes & J. D. Williams. 1984. An examination of some C. S. Rafinesque
North American unionid taxa (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Am. Malacol. Union Inc. Bull. 3: 105-106.
Bookstein, F. L., B. Chernoff, R. L. Elder, J. M. Humphries, Jr., G. R. Smith & R. E. Strauss. 1985.
Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. The geometry of size and shape change, with examples
from fishes. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Special Publ. No. 15. 277.p.
Bormann, F. H. & G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag,
New York. 253 p.
Brooks, D. R. 1979. Testing the context and extent of host-parasite coevolution. Syst. Zool. 28: 299- —
307. :
Brooks, D. R., T. B. Thorson & M. A. Mayes. 1981. Freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygonidae) and
their helminth parasites: testing hypotheses of evolution and coevolution. Adv. in Cladistics, Proc.
First Meet. Willi Hennig Soc. 1: 147-175.
Burns, J. M. 1984. Evolutionary differentiation: differentiating gold-banded skippers—Autochton
cellus and more (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Pyrginae). Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No. 405. 38 p.
Cain, A. J. 1959. Taxonomic concepts. [bis 101: 302-318.
Callahan, J.T. 1984. Long-term ecological research. Bioscience 34: 363-367.
Chernoff, B. 1982. Character variation among populations and the analysis of biogeography. Am.
Zool. 22: 425-439.
Chernoff, B. 1983. Revision of American atherinid fishes, subfamily Menidiinae, and systematics of
the subgenus Atherinella. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissert., Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor. 569 p.
Chernoff, B., R. R. Miller & C. R. Gilbert. 1982. Notropis orca and Notropis simus, cyprinid fishes
from the American southwest, with description of a new subspecies. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ.
Mich. No. 698. 49 p.
Cronquist, A. 1985. History of generic concepts in the Compositae. Taxon 34: 6-10.
Davis, G. M. 1983. Relative roles of molecular genetics, anatomy, morphometrics and ecology in
assessing relationships among North American Unionidae (Bivalvia). In: G. S. Oxford & D.
Rollinson (eds.), Protein polymorphism: adaptive and taxonomic significance. Systematics Asso-
ciation Special Vol. No. 24, Academic Press, New York.
Davis, G. M. & S. L. H. Fuller. 1981. Genetic relationships among recent Unionaceae (Bivalvia) of
North America. Malacologia 20: 217-253.
Davis, G. M., M. Mazurkiewicz & M. Mandracchia. 1982. Spurwinkia: Morphology, systematics,
and ecology of a new genus of North American marshland Hydrobiidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda).
Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 134: 143-177.
Diamond, J. M. 1980. Patchy distributions of tropical birds. Jn: M. E. Soule & B. A. Wilcox (eds.),
Conservation biology. Sinauer Assoc., Massachusetts. 395 p.
Dominey, W. J. 1984. Alternative mating strategies and evolutionarily stable strategies. Amer. Zool.
24: 385-396.
Dunhan, A. E. & D. B. Miles. 1985. Patterns of covariation in life history traits of squamate reptiles:
the effects of size and phylogeny reconsidered. Am. Nat. 126: in press.
Dunham, A. E., G. R. Smith & J. N. Taylor. 1979. Evidence for ecological character displacement
in western American catostomid fishes. Evolution 33: 877-896.
Eberhard, W. G. 1982. Behavioral characters for the higher classification of orb-weaving spiders.
Evolution 36: 1067-1095.
Eldredge, N. & J. Cracraft. 1980. Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. Columbia
Univ. Press, New York. 349 p.
Ferris, V. R., J. M. Ferris & L. L. Murdock. 1985. Two-dimensional protein patterns in Heterodera
glycines. J. Nematol. 17: in press.
SYSTEMATICS AND LONG-RANGE ECOLOGIC RESEARCH 43
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 8:
254-264.
Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Jn: M. E. Soule & B. A. Wilcox
(eds.), Conservation biology. Sinauer Assoc., Massachusetts. 395 p.
Funk, V. A. 1985. Cladistics and generic concepts in the Compositae. Taxon 34: 72-80.
Gilbert, J. J. 1966. Rotifer ecology and embryological induction. Science 151(3715): 1234-1237.
Gill, F. B. 1980. Historical aspects of hybridization between blue-winged and golden-winged war-
blers. Auk 97: 1-18.
Gould, S. J. & E. Vrba. 1982. Exaptation, a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8: 4-
13.
Grant, P. & D. Schluter. 1984. Interspecific competition inferred from patterns of guild structure.
In: D. R. Strong et al., (eds.) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton
Univ. Press, New Jersey.
Grassle, J. P. & J. F. Grassle. 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator Capitella
(Polychaeta). Science 192: 567-569.
Hebert, P. D. N. 1978. The population biology of Daphnia (Crustacea, Daphnidae). Biol. Rev. 53:
387-426. |
Hebert, P. D. N. & T. J. Crease. 1980. Clonal coexistence in Daphnia pulex (Leydig): another
planktonic paradox. Science 207: 1363-1365.
Hillis, D. M., J. S. Frost & D. A. Wright. 1983. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Rana pipiens
complex: a biochemical evaluation. Syst. Zool. 32: 132-143.
Hoagland, K. E. 1984. Use of molecular genetics to distinguish species of the gastropod genus
Crepidula (Prosobranchia: Calyptraeidae). Malacologia 25: 607-628.
Hodges, R. W. 1976. Presidential address 1976— What insects can we identify? J. Lepid. Soc. 30:
245-251.
Huettel, R. N., D. W. Dickson & D. T. Kaplan. 1984. Radopholus citrophilus sp. n. (Nematoda), a
sibling species of Radopholus similis. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 51: 32-35.
James, F. C. 1983. Environmental component of morphological differentiation in birds. Science
221: 184-186.
Jenkins, R. E. 1976. A list of undescribed freshwater fish species of continental United States and
Canada, with additions to the 1970 checklist. Copeia 1976: 642-644.
Johnson, M.S. 1975. Biochemical systematics of the atherinid genus Menidia. Copeia 1975: 662-
691.
Kosztarab, M. 1984. A biological survey of the United States. Science 223(4635): 443.
Krueger, D. A. & S. I. Dodson. 1981. Embryological induction and predation ecology in Daphnia
pulex. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26: 219-223.
Lack, D. 1947. Darwin’s finches. Cambridge Univ. Press, London. 208 p.
Lauder, G. V. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology
7: 430-442.
Leggett, W. C. & J. E. Carscadden. 1978. Latitudinal variation in reproductive characteristics of
American shad (Alosa sapidissima): evidence for population specific life history strategies in fish.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 1469-1478.
Likens, G. E., F. H. Bormann, R. S. Pierce, J. S. Eaton & N. M. Johnson. 1977. Biogeochemistry
of a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York. 146 p.
Linzey, D. W. (ed.) 1979. Endangered and threatened plants and animals of Virginia. Virginia
Polytechnic and State Univ., Blacksburg. 665 p.
Lucas, J. R. 1978. Feeding and competition between the silversides Menidia beryllina (Cope) and
Menidia peninsulae (Goode & Bean) at Crystal River, Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Florida,
Gainesville.
Lynch, M. 1984. The genetic structure of a cyclical parthenogen. Evolution 38: 186-203.
Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. 428 p.
Mitter, C. & D. R. Brooks. 1983. Phylogenetic aspects of coevolution. Jn: D. J. Futuyma & M.
Slatkin (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer Assoc., Inc., Massachusetts.
Moler, P. E. 1985. A new species of frog (Ranidae: Rana) from northwestern Florida. Copeia 1985:
379-383.
44 CHERNOFF
Mooney, H. A. & S. L. Gulmon. 1983. The determinants of plant productivity—natural versus man-
modified communities. Jn: H. A. Mooney & M. Godron (eds.) Disturbance and ecosystems.
Ecological Studies 44, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Myers, N. 1979. The sinking ark. Pergamon Press, New York. 307 p.
Ono, R. D., J. D. Williams & A. Wagner. 1983. Vanishing fishes of North America. Stone Wall
Press, Washington, DC. 257 p.
Pirsig, R. M. 1974. Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Morrow Quill, New York. 412 p.
Qi, Y., C. W. Reimer & R. K. Mahoney. 1982. Taxonomic studies of the genus Hydrosera. I.
Comparative morphology of H. triquetra Wallach and H. whampoensis (Schwartz) Derby, with
ecological remarks. Proc. 7th Int. Diatom Symposium
Rathke, B. J. 1984. Patterns of flowering phenologies: testability and causal inference. Jn: D. R.
Strong et al. (eds.) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton Univ.
Press, New Jersey.
Ricklefs, R. E. 1973. Ecology. Chiron Press, Massachusetts. 861 p.
Selander, R. K. 1969. The ecological aspects of the systematics of animals. In: Systematic Biology.
Proceedings of an international conference. National Acad. Sci. Publ. 1692, Washington, DC.
Sibley, C. G. & J. E. Ahlquist. In press. The relationships of some groups of African birds, based
on comparisons of the genetic material, DNA. Proc. Symp. African Vertebrates, Bonner Zool.
Beitrage.
Simberloff, D. 1983. Sizes of coexisting species. In: D. J. Futuyma & M. Slatkin (eds.), Coevolution.
Sinauer Assoc., Inc., Massachusetts.
Simberloff, D. 1984. Properties of coexisting bird species in two archipelagoes. Jn: D. R. Strong et
al. (eds.) Ecological communities: Conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, New
Jersey.
Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 247 p.
Slater, J. A. 1981. The pursuit of the smallest game. A look at systematic entomology from the 21st
century. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 107: 149-162.
Smith, M. L. 1981. Late Cenozoic fishes in the warm deserts of North America: a reinterpretation
of desert adaptations. Jn: R. J. Naiman & D. L. Soltz (eds.), The biology of fishes in North American
deserts. Wiley Interscience Series, New York.
Soule, M. E. & B. A. Wilcox (eds.). 1980. Conservation biology. Sinauer Assoc., Massachusetts. 395
p.
Starnes, L. B. & A. E. Bogan. 1982. Unionid mollusca (Bivalvia) from Little South Fork Cumberland
River, with ecological and nomenclatural notes. Brimleyana 8: 101-119.
Stearns, S.C. 1984. The effects of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation in life history traits
of lizards and snakes. Am. Nat. 123: 56-72.
Theriot, E. & E. F. Stoermer. 1982. Principal component analysis of character variation in Ste-
phanodiscus niagarae Ehrenb.: Morphological variation related to lake trophic status. Proc. 7th
Int. Diatom Symposium 1982: 97-111.
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Monographs in Population Biology
No. 17, Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey. 296 p.
Walker, T. J. 1964. Cryptic species among sound-producing ensiferan Orthoptera (Gryllidae and
Tettigoniidae). Q. Rev. Biol. 39: 345-355.
Whitcomb, R. F., C. S. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz & D. Bystrak.
1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Jn: R. L. Burgess
& D. M. Sharpe (eds.) Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Ecological Studies
No. 41, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Whitmore, T.C.(ed.). 1973. Treeflora of Malaya. Vol. 2. Forest Dept., Ministry of Primary Industries,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 106 p.
Wilbur, H. M. & J. Travis. 1984. An experimental approach to understanding pattern in natural
communities. Jn: D. R. Strong et al. (eds.) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the
evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey.
Wilcox, B. A. 1980. Insular ecology and conservation. In: M. E. Soule & B. A. Wilcox (eds.),
Conservation biology. Sinauer Assoc., Massachusetts.
Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics. The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley-Inter-
science, New York. 439 p.
Diversity, Germplasm
and Natural Resources
Christine Schonewald-Cox
National Park Service, U.C.—Davis
Abstract: The conservation of genetic diversity, germplasm, and natural re-
sources depends upon knowledge of natural fauna and flora obtained through
a biological survey. The author discusses the intrinsic values of genetic diver-
sity, germplasm, and natural resources in increasing the effectiveness of con-
servation and making it possible for us to both slow extinction rates and detect
extinctions as they occur or are pending. She discusses the need for a biological
survey and the value of establishing, monitoring, and updating a data base in
the context of these issues. She reviews recommendations made by interna-
tional conservation organizations that also recognize the essential importance
of biological surveys.
Keywords: Genetic Diversity, Germplasm, Natural Resources, Biological
Survey.
INTRODUCTION
The conservation and management of genetic and biological diversity, germ-
plasm, and natural resources will not proceed systematically without extensive
knowledge of the natural biota. ““NABIS,” the proposed National Biological Sur-
vey, has the potential to provide us with this knowledge, which is greatly needed
by all communities concerned with conservation and human welfare and survival.
In this review, I will first address myself to the intrinsic value of such things as
diversity, germplasm, and natural resources in promoting the importance of a
national biological survey. Human survival and the conservation of diversity,
germplasm, and natural resources depend upon knowledge of the status, variety,
and distribution of, including changes in, our biota. It is this knowledge that forms
the basis upon which are developed ideas and discoveries that support both our
survival and the continued abundance of other species. It is the lack of such
knowledge that will undermine even our own existence. Thus, why we need a
national survey, such as NABIS, to provide this knowledge is the second issue I
will address. And, finally, I will bring attention to current and compatible efforts
that relate to a national biological survey.
INTRINSIC VALUE
Terms and Definitions
The terms “‘diversity”’ (whether genetic or biological), ‘“‘“germplasm,”’ and “‘nat-
ural resources” carry sometimes contradictory meanings, depending upon the
45
46 SCHONEWALD-COX
orientation of the user and the context in which they are used. “‘Natural resources’,
for example, is used as a category of responsibility by the National Park Service.
This category includes the variety of flora, fauna, and non-living natural and
scenic qualities protected by a park, such as geologic, fossil, and visibility attributes
of the park, but does not include historic or cultural structures or artifacts. In the
general usage of the term, prevalent in the literature, however, “natural resources”
carries an exploitative connotation (forest lumber, minerals, soils, or water), which
is contradictory to the definition used by the National Park Service. Similar usage
problems exist with the terms “genetic (or biological) diversity’’ and “‘germplasm.”’
Therefore, I’ll first introduce the subjects with definitions.
Genetic Diversity
Genetic diversity can be defined as variation in genetic composition: variation
within and between individuals, populations, species, and higher taxa are implicit
(also categorized under the term “biological diversity’’).
Every individual blade in a patch of grass may be genetically identical, or nearly
so, but if one examines different patches of the same grass, each may prove to be
genetically unique. At the same time, a genetic analysis of a different species may
reveal that all its populations are genetically similar but that individuals within
the populations vary greatly. If we wish to conserve either of these types of species,
we may do so by utilizing knowledge of their geographic and temporal appor-
tionments of genetic, including phenotypic, diversity. But without studies through-
out species’ ranges, these types of information will be unavailable. Moreover,
most species, with several, possibly rare and unique, genotypic or phenotypic
traits, may remain incompletely described without a systematic survey of North
American habitats. Genetic diversity also manifests itself in the ecological inter-
actions of species. This can be observed in unique ecological relationships that
have developed, such as between keystone species and their dependent species.
Once again, only a systematic survey can hope to reveal the complexity and
biogeographic extent of these relationships.
In the field of evolutionary biology, considerable attention has been given to
how genetic diversity is manifested by polymorphisms, proportions of hetero-
zygosity, and linkage groups. For example, stresses imposed on portions of animal
and plant populations can significantly alter the genetic structure of individuals
locally, sometimes favoring rare alleles in heterozygous conditions, the presence
of which, under normal circumstances, could decrease fitness of individuals [(Liu
and Godt, 1983; as with responses of rats to warfarin and concomitant increase
in minimum requirements of vitamin K as described by Bishop (1981) and Bishop
and Hartley (1976)]. The significance of this lies in the flexibility of responses by
the genome to the environment provided by variability (polymorphisms, hetero-
zygosity, and differing linkage groups). The accumulation of such knowledge offers
interesting possibilities for understanding how species respond to new environ-
ments and how evolution functions in species’ adaptations to stress.
Germplasm
Germplasm can be defined as genetic material in the cell. Current use suggests
that germplasm refers primarily to genetic material that is the template for new
DIVERSITY, GERMPLASM, AND NATURAL RESOURCES 47
agricultural, industrial or medicinal developments, as well as providing dried or
frozen material for genetic and systematic analysis and preserved cells, embryos,
seeds, etc., of ancestral types and close relatives of domesticates.
Whether for studies in systematics and evolutionary biology or for preservation
of semen, embryos, eggs, pollen, seeds, or cell lines and tissues, the preservation
of germplasm constitutes a valuable investment in the advancement of technology
for ensuing decades and beyond.
Germplasm is not only a resource for future use, but is already being used
extensively at present. In systematic biology we sometimes depend on frozen
tissues in the electrophoretic analysis of population characteristics or in DNA
hybridization, for example, for determining the common ancestries of similar taxa
and to determine the probable evolutionary distance between them. Most of the
work dependent upon germplasm has come of age in the 70’s and 80’s. As Dessauer
and Hafner (1984) point out, this increased interest is evidenced by the prepon-
derance of papers on molecular analysis in systematic journals.
Zoological parks and botanical gardens have taken it upon themselves to main-
tain species ex situ that are nearly extinct in situ. Aside from the manipulation
of breeding systems, diet, and microclimate, new laboratory techniques are being
developed that accelerate population growth. These techniques to which I refer
are: frozen storage of sperm, embryos, eggs (this one with little success so far),
and pollen and seed banks. Frozen sperm can be used to increase the effective
population size dramatically by either decreasing generation time or balancing
individual contributions to reproduction and sex ratios, for example. Embryos
from close taxonomic relations transplanted from one female to another can also
be used to increase the effective population size by increasing fecundity and birth
rate. Similarly, pollen and seed banks function to increase fecundity and reduce
generation time, and, as with animals, retain genetic options for increasing di-
versity in selected breeding populations.
The function of cell line and tissue storage is less immediately obvious. Traits
kept in cell lines from disease-tolerant or toxin-tolerant animal and plant species
can be kept for future technology to reproduce and share with non-tolerant in-
dividuals, agricultural varieties, or endangered species. Organs and tissue lines of
vanishing species may be kept for future investigation of their potential contri-
butions, not only to the parent species, but also to human survival—new medi-
cines, food crops, or detoxifying agents, for example. Opportunities for advance-
ment are limited only in our conception and imagination of what gifts the storage
of germplasm can offer the future.
Natural Resources
Natural resources can be defined as capacities or materials supplied by nature.
Current use suggests those materials that have value in sustaining life as well as
lifestyle for humans. This term is sometimes equated with genetic and scenic,
excluding cultural, diversity combined.
Most natural resources that have been extensively described or inventoried
currently support strong financial interests and production. This is the case for
most major crops, livestock, minerals, and waterways, for example. But what of
those resources for which we have not yet discovered uses? Or, what of those
48 SCHONEWALD-COX
needs for which we have not yet found the resources? It seems we know all too
little about what our continent has to offer in the realm of future needs and
possibilities. And, to beg the question, are any of the United States’ biological
resources non-renewable?
I believe that exploited species for which recruitment in the population is
consistently less than the consumption rate are, essentially, non-renewable. And,
with reference to recruitment, I am speaking not only in terms of absolute numbers
of individuals but in terms of the proportion of natural genetic variability renewed
with every generation. This will determine, in part, the evolutionary potential of
the population or species. In such a case, probably including most of the non-
domesticated species, individuals that are directly exploited (perhaps excluding
mallard ducks and whitetailed deer) qualify as non-renewable natural resources.
Humans have historically not gone out of their way to protect life that does
not relate to human survival or pleasure. But, fortunately, the public definition
of pleasure is rapidly changing. A new segment of our population has come to
value habitats and species from which they may never realize any tangible benefits,
other than the pleasure of seeing wildlife through mass media. The wildlife seen
through media have become an important natural resource, in the public’s mind,
and will only increase in importance with time.
THE NEED FOR A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
So, what does a biological survey offer toward increasing our knowledge of
biological diversity, germplasm, and natural resources? First, it results in a data
base. Second, it involves monitoring and updating the data base. And, third (most
importantly) it furnishes the knowledge we require. Inevitably, such a project will
increase cooperation between science, agriculture, industry, medicine, recreation,
and other groups to build a data base and plan a future for the biosphere and
ourselves, collectively.
Building the Data Base
What information should the data base gather during its building phase in terms
of diversity, germplasm, and natural resources? The data base that results from
a national biological survey has the potential to contain documentation of ge-
notypes and phenotypes of species at specified places and times. Multiple docu-
mentations over time in the same place can offer us an ability to track changes
in habitats and species that occur both ‘“‘randomly”’ and in response to environ-
mental changes. Similarly, multiple documentations in different locations offer
the opportunity of measuring differences that exist between populations and be-
tween habitats. A biological survey will forcibly document the distributions and
abundance of wild relatives of domesticated species and of habitats with the
greatest potential for housing biological diversity and maintaining valued natural
resources. The data base provided by a biological survey can provide the baseline
data against which changes will be measured in the future.
The Value of Establishing, Monitoring, and Updating the Data Base
Analyses of intervals in both time and space offer the opportunity to detect new
genotypes, populations, species, or ecological manifestations; to detect changing
DIVERSITY, GERMPLASM, AND NATURAL RESOURCES 49
conditions (e.g., health, vigor, etc.); and to resolve which changes among these
are humanly induced; as well as to discern which events or variables are the
possible agents of change and causes of spatial and temporal difference.
Furnishing Knowledge
The potential knowledge furnished by the data base is vast and beyond the
scope that any of us can presently predict. However, in the realm of conservation
and management of diversity, germplasm, and natural resources, the survey’s
product data base has some predictably valuable uses.
The data base can be used for developing new conservation biology, medical,
agricultural, and wildlife management theory as well as improved techniques and
practices. A data base such as this will facilitate the discovery of new medicines,
foods, substitutes, or life- and lifestyle-sustaining resources.
Equally important to these products is the monitoring of the speed at which
species expand their ranges and diversify. This is a subject that is poorly known
despite numerous ongoing investigations into evolutionary processes. Some species
change discernably within our lifetimes while other changes seem to require geo-
logical time. The data base provided by the biological survey offers the opportunity
to measure the rates of change as well as the relative rates of anthropogenic versus
natural extinction (when these can be distinguished from each other).
The systematized knowledge of the existence of the diversity of species, germ-
plasm, and natural resources will help us prescribe the magnitude of their pro-
tection needs. In addition, this knowledge will provide the working matter needed
to develop sound conservation legislation and management mandates necessary
to bring about this protection.
Because of its “‘national-scale”’ of activity, the biological survey has a potential
to increase public awareness and thereby stimulate public conscience relative to
maintaining diversity, germplasm, and natural resources in the U.S. This is not
only achieved by the publicity and television programs that arise out of the effort
but also by the fact that the undertaking of the biological survey affects employ-
ment and public exposure. The public and involved working force come into
contact with the non-consumptive value of wildlife (including plants) as well as
the consumptive uses of renewable resources and maintenance of germplasm that
are equally crucial to human survival.
Refining the Data Base
The availability of automated data processing, particularly microcomputer net-
working systems, offers a host of opportunities to maintain, modify, and utilize
the data base collected in the biological survey. Refinement of the data base would
be undertaken to incorporate changes in scientific thinking about documentation,
changes in species and population relationships, and changes in the types of
agricultural varieties or pests. The refinement is the logical ongoing product of
monitoring and use of the data base. The fact that a survey is conducted comes
with at least partial assurance that improvements and modification through use
will inevitably be made. That in itself is a positive outcome of such a survey
effort.
50 SCHONEWALD-COX
Cooperation
It is the building and use of a broad and updated data base that brings together
scientists and their institutions to cooperate on large interdisciplinary projects.
Incorporated within this framework of cooperation will be the increased role that
systematics, biogeography, and collections housing institutions (e.g., museums)
could play in maintaining the records and vouchers for the survey.
Because other countries already have, or are currently developing, their national
surveys, opportunities will only increase for international cooperation to improve
understanding of natural ecological processes and anthropogenic impacts. Co-
operation, whether it is at the private, public, institutional, or international levels,
will occur on the basis of interdependencies (Salwasser et al., in press) and for the
facilitation of information and talent exchange in conservation and management
of diversity, germplasm, and natural resources.
WHAT ARE CURRENT NATIONAL TRENDS
THAT RELATE TO A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY?
Foremost, modern conservation and economic philosophies beg for a biological
survey, whether or not they know it. The conservation community needs an
enlightened approach to an expanding problem—extinction. The economic com-
munity desires to survive and thus needs to keep up its own ‘“‘food”’ supply.
Dasmann (1973a and 1973b) and later Udvardy (1975) have endeavored to clas-
sify the biological realms and biomes of the earth to allow systematic searches —
and assessments to be made of their diversities of organisms. Recently Hayden
et al. (1984) have developed a parallel biological classification for the major bodies
of water. The Nature Conservancy and associated Natural Heritage Programs
have attempted to set aside ““unique’”’ communities based on what knowledge
they have been able to gather on the distribution and uniqueness of each species
or community. The International Program on Man and the Biosphere has en-
deavored to take maps of large-scale biogeographic biomes and provinces and
high resolution vegetation maps (such as Kuchler, 1966) and include a sample of
each habitat type in its biosphere reserve network. It is hoped by MAB that
biosphere reserves will contain representative diversity of the biomes or habitats
in which they are established. While selection of sites for biosphere reserves is
hardly done blindly, MAB has recognized the difficulty of finding biological sur-
vey-like data to systematize their selection efforts.
As the State of the Environment Report (1984) states, “Historically, the greatest
concern for, and therefore the most information about, wildlife has focused on a
relatively small group of species—those commercially valuable or taken for sport
(for example salmon and deer), those with special aesthetic appeal to amateur
naturalists (birds, butterflies), or those especially awesome or attractive (whales,
owls, grizzly bears). Therefore, most readily available data on wildlife are on
vertebrates, particularly mammals and birds, and especially game species.’ The
endangered and threatened species lists developed by many of our states contain
considerable numbers of species that have not yet been added to the national list.
This would probably not be the case if we had a national data base from which
the national listing office could obtain data on distributions and abundance. In-
terestingly, the majority of species that are listed tend to be the scientifically better
DIVERSITY, GERMPLASM, AND NATURAL RESOURCES 3
known species or taxa. While a high priority has been given to looking at inver-
tebrates (and a few are included on the national list) does it mean that only a few
invertebrates are actually threatened with extinction? How can we begin to answer
this when we have not determined what taxa naturally exist here in the U.S., and
at what natural (and periodic) abundance levels?
Ongoing surveys such as those conducted in a few states, the National Wetlands
Survey, and federal surveys of barrier islands, are preliminary survey projects that
really should be part of the larger coordinated effort embodied in a national
biological survey. The establishment of biosphere reserves, the selection of pro-
tected habitats, and the allotment of areas for mutiple use, such as for national
forests or game refuges, should follow from the results of a survey rather than be
the subject of its justification.
CONCLUSIONS
As concerns species and higher taxa, approximately 50% of the Hawaiian bird
species 9re thought to have been extirpated by humans and related causes. We
are fortunate in having caves in Hawaii where bones have been discovered that
help us to reconstruct the previous avifauna of these islands (Olson and James,
1982; James and Olson, 1983). Such finds act similarly to the museum collections
in which surveys produce specimens that vouch for previous conditions.
In his address at the first International Conference on Biological Diversity
(1982), Khoshoo recalled, ‘““There was a physician living 3000 years ago who was
asked by his teacher to find a plant which was useless. He returned after 10 years,
saying that there was no such plant.” This decidedly eastern parable bears upon
the attitude of the U.S. towards its native resources. Can the U.S. acknowledge
ignorance—that there is more to learn about one’s environment beyond a pre-
scribed achievement than the development of economic and agricultural supe-
riority based upon approximately 1,000 imported economic species? Are our flora
and fauna so useless or less attractive that they are not worth looking at? At least
150,000 people represented by scientific organizations led by AAAS think our
resources are worth tracking. As Kosztarab (1984) pointed out, the proposal to
establish a national survey, to fund the basic taxonomic research, and to produce
the manuals, catalogs, atlases, and classification systems is already before Con-
gress. What we seem to need is for someone not to be afraid to make a “‘profitable”’
decision.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ASC, on an only geographically smaller scale, is automatically joined by
a strong unity of purpose shown in recommendations made by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Wildlife Fund, international MAB,
UNEP, IBPGR, FAO, UNDP, The Ist International Conference on Biological
Diversity (U.S. Department of State, 1982), and The World Conservation Strategy
(IUCN, UNEP, and WWF, 1980), to name a few organizations and efforts which
recommend that the world’s resources (including the vast genetic diversity) be
documented. As concerns resources within the U.S., I would prefer to iterate the
collection of excellent recommendations already made by these groups adopted
to a national scale:
a2 SCHONEWALD-COX
—"
. Establish a national register of genetic resources.
2. Develop knowledge of the status of existing plant and animal resources in
the U.S.
3. On the basis of the abundance and distribution of natural diversity, estab-
lish voucher collections and depositories that systematically preserve an-
imal and plant specimens and germplasm, including tissue samples and
biological reagents (such as antisera). Do this on the basis of the function
of collections: A) specialized research, B) major reference, and C) national
resources.
4. Inventory ecosystems and accelerate efforts to identify and protect areas
that represent unique ecosystems and which have high species diversity
that remain unprotected.
5. Monitor unique ecosystems by examining environmental conditions and
indicator species.
6. Any survey team should include specialists in organismic biology, system-
atics, comparative taxonomy, and ecology for the full range of organisms
that enter into the survey.
7. The U.S. should establish a U.S. interagency task force on biological di-
versity to develop comprehensive, long-term goals and strategies to inven-
tory and maintain biological diversity.
8. The function of the survey should be institutionalized at the federal and
state levels.
9. Coordinate the inventory with Canada and Mexico and evaluate all current
international and within-U.S. efforts to inventory both wild and introduced
species and varieties.
10. Refine our ecosystem classification system on the basis of the results of the
national biological survey to guide selection of areas to be managed for
multiple use or for protection of native biological diversity and introduced
diversity threatened with extinction in its native habitat.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Thomas Gilbert (formerly of the National Park Service),
Arthur Allen (National Park Service), John Dennis (National Park Service), Re-
gional Curators (National Park Service), Jonathan Bayless (National Park Service)
and Jacqueline Schonewald (California Academy of Sciences, retired) for their
helpful discussions on the topics of biological inventory and voucher collections,
and for having stimulated my interest in this topic. Thanks also to Richard Baker
(National Park Service) for his editorial assistance. The views expressed in the
paper are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
nor policies of the National Park Service.
LITERATURE CITED
Bishop, J. A. 1981. A neo-Darwinian approach to resistance: examples from mammals. Jn: J. A.
Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man-made changes. Academic Press,
London.
Bishop, J. A. & D. J. Hartley. 1976. The size and age structure of rural populations of Rattus
DIVERSITY, GERMPLASM, AND NATURAL RESOURCES 53
norvegicus containing individuals resistant to the anticoagulant poison Warfarin. Jr. of Animal
Ecol. 45: 623-647.
Dasmann, R. F. 1973a. A system for defining and classifying natural regions for purposes of conser-
vation. I.U.C.N. Occasional Paper No. 7, Morges, Switzerland.
Dasmann, R. F. 1973b. Biotic provinces of the world. 1.U.C.N. Occasional Paper No. 9, Morges,
Switzerland.
Dessauer, H. C. & Mark S. Hafner (eds.). 1984. Collection of frozen tissues: value, management,
field and laboratory procedures, and directory of existing collections. Association of Systematics
Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 73 p.
Hayden, B. P., G. C. Ray & R. Dolan. 1984. Classification of coastal and marine environments.
Environ. Conserv. 11(3): 199-207.
I.U.C.N. 1980. World conservation strategy, living resource conservation for sustained development.
I.U.C.N., U.N.E.P., and W.W.F.
James, H. F. & S. L. Olson. 1983. Flightless birds. Natural History 92(9): 30-40.
Khoshoo, T. N. 1982. Conservation of biological diversity: the Indian experience. Jn: U.S. Depart-
ment of State (ed). Proceedings of the U.S. Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity, November
16-18, 1981. U.S. Department of State Publication 9262 (International Organization and Con-
ference Series 300) B.I.0.A. 126 p.
Kosztarab, M. 1984. Editorial: A biological survey of the United States. Science 223(4635): 443.
Kuchler, A. W. 1966. Potential natural vegetation. In: The national atlas of the United States of
America. U.S.D.1.-U.S.G.S.
Liu, E. H. & M. J. Godt. 1983. The differentiation of populations over short distances. In: Scho-
newald-Cox, C. M.,S. M. Chambers, B. MacBryde and L. Thomas (eds.) Genetics and conservation.
Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, California. 722 p.
Olson, S. L. & H. F. James. 1982. Fossil birds from Hawaiian islands: evidence for wholesale
extinction by man before western contact. Science 217: 633-635.
Risser, P. G. & K. D. Cornelison. 1979. Man and the Biosphere: U.S. Information Synthesis Project
MAB-8 Biosphere Reserves. Oklahoma Biological Survey. Norman, Oklahoma.
Salwasser, H., C. Schonewald-Cox & R. J. Baker. Jn press. The role of interagency cooperation in
managing for viable populations. Jn: Soule, M. E. (ed.) Viable populations. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Conservation Foundation. 1984. State of the environment: an assessment at mid-decade. The
Conservation Foundation. Washington, DC.
Udvardy, M. D. F. 1975. A classification of the biogeographic provinces of the world. 1.U.C.N.
Occasional Paper No. 18. |
U.S. Department of State. 1982. Proceedings of the U.S. Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity,
November 16-18, 1981. Department of State Publication 9262 (International Organization and
Conference Series 300) B.I.0.A. 126 p.
ee
| ghia i
SO ene aa aunts ane wie
ne ssa Si,
| stioty i ae
outa | | ph vie ef tne fae
The Role
of a National Biological Survey
in Environmental Protection
Allan Hirsch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract: A national biological survey could make a major contribution to
environmental protection and management in the U. S. To be most useful for
that purpose, the survey should include information on population biology and
ecology as well as on taxonomy. The survey should also focus on means of
making existing biological information available and on synthesizing such in-
formation to address environmental management needs. Strong emphasis should
be placed on development and use of modern information system technology.
Keywords: Biological Survey, Environmental Protection, Environmental Im-
pact Assessment, Ecosystem Classification and Inventory.
INTRODUCTION
A national biological survey, well conceived and effectively managed, could
make a major contribution to environmental protection and management in the
Was:
There can be little doubt about the importance of the availability of adequate
information about flora and fauna in addressing such issues as toxic chemical
pollution, acid deposition, land disturbance, pesticide resistance, and the envi-
ronmental impacts of introduced plants and animals, including new genotypes
from the emerging biotechnology industry. Vast amounts of biological data have
already been collected, sometimes in an attempt to address these very problems.
However, the data are widely scattered, often not accessible or comparable, and
perhaps most important, generally not organized in formats relevant to environ-
mental decision making. There are also major information gaps that can be filled
only by additional research and survey work. Therefore, the current interest in
establishing a national survey is highly encouraging.
Special efforts will be needed in design and execution of the survey if it is to
serve the specific needs of environmental protection, as well as meet other goals
such as support of basic biosystematics research. My remarks will focus on the
information needed to support applied environmental protection and manage-
ment and on recommendations concerning how those needs might be addressed.
32
56 HIRSCH
TAXONOMIC INFORMATION
A biological survey can be described as an organized effort to characterize the
biota of a nation or region. Typically, biological surveys have been grounded
primarily in basic taxonomic work on the classification and distribution of biota,
resulting in the production of monographs, identification keys, museum collec-
tions and, increasingly, computerized information bases. |
There is an important need to fill gaps in taxonomic information in support of
environmental research and monitoring. For example, reduction in species di-
versity may provide subtle but important early warnings of long term environ-
mental trends. For some groups, such as microorganisms or invertebrates, basic
limitations in taxonomic information may impede recognition of such symptoms.
Water quality evaluations are made through construction of diversity indices or
through use of various indicator organisms. Species level identification may be
important, as different species within the same genera can exhibit a wide range
of pollution tolerances. For example, insects and other macroinvertebrates have
long been used as indicators of water quality. However, in many groups of aquatic
insects, identification of the immature stages usually collected in stream surveys
cannot be made below the generic level. Improved taxonomic information could
improve the sensitivity and reliability of biological water quality evaluations (Resh
and Unzicker, 1975).
Taxonomic information of the kind likely to be provided by a biological survey
is often directly and immediately relevant to the operating requirements of applied
environmental protection as well as meeting more basic research needs. I will
give several examples.
One of the principal environmental impacts of electric generating power plants
is destruction of ichthyoplankton by impingement and entrainment in intake water
systems. A central issue in siting such plants or in determining required controls
on plant design and operation is the presence or absence of large concentrations
of ichthyoplankton, particularly species of commercial or recreational importance.
Environmental consultants and others conducting impact studies were having
difficulty in identifying ichthyoplankton and determining what species were in-
volved. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) prepared a massive atlas of
egg, larvae and juvenile stages of fishes found on the mid-Atlantic coast to help
meet this need (Jones et al., 1978).
As I have already indicated, benthic invertebrates are important in the assess-
ment of water quality conditions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) sponsored preparation of a series of keys to freshwater invertebrates to
facilitate pollution assessment (U.S. EPA, 1973).
The national Clean Water Act provides for the protection of wetlands. An
important issue in determining whether this regulatory jurisdiction applies at a
given site is the determination of wetland boundaries. Hydrophytic vegetation
and hydric soils are key wetland indicators. A Federal interagency group has been
developing comprehensive regional lists of hydrophytes and hydric soils, and FWS
is developing a computerized National Wetlands Plant database.
These rather obvious examples indicate that operating agencies on the envi-
ronmental “firing line’? sometimes need basic taxonomic information in support
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION aT.
of their missions. The importance of taxonomic studies of neglected taxa and
regions should not be minimized; that should come as no surprise to this audience.
However, in seeking support or sponsorship for a national biological survey
from agencies responsible for environmental protection, it is important from the
outset not to overstate the need for taxonomic data. In my opinion, in applied
environmental management, the most important need is for other kinds of bio-
logical information. An understanding of environmental impact requires the abil-
ity to identify the flora and fauna of the area under study, but from the standpoint
of practical environmental management, often this understanding need not be a
comprehensive ability to identify all forms.
To cite a case in point, a very useful service the survey could perform would
be provision of information to support preparation of environmental impact
statements. Many millions of dollars have been spent in biological baseline surveys
for such statements, but the resultant information has often been lost after initial
use. The survey could reduce both redundant data collection and subsequent data
loss. Yet an aspect of environmental impact statement preparation that has been
widely criticized both in terms of costs and relevance to decision making has been
inclusion of exhaustive species lists. Other kinds of biological information may
be more useful in assessing environmental impacts and in identifying appropriate
protective measures. Effective impact assessment is evolving towards a more
selective evaluation of various ecosystem components or species of special concern
(Beanlands and Duinker, 1985).
Therefore, to play an important role in meeting environmental management
needs, the national biological survey must go beyond strictly taxonomic consid-
erations to include information on the distribution and population patterns and
trends of important species and on ecosystems.
POPULATION BIOLOGY
The need for information on population structure, status, and trénds is most
evident in the case of managed species, where an understanding of the population
structure is essential to determine harvest rates and other management actions.
Somewhat the same considerations apply with respect to environmental protec-
tion, as well. We may be able to forecast the impacts of a development on or-
ganisms or their habitat, but a broader context is needed to determine the sig-
nificance of those impacts and to make social judgements concerning their
acceptability when choices must be made between development and environ-
mental values. We must be able to address such questions as what percentage of
the species population or its range is being affected? Is the impact stressing a
species or population already in decline?
For example, in connection with development of the oil and natural gas re-
sources of the Outer Continental Shelf, concern has been considerable about
potential impacts of oil spills and other activities on marine bird and mammal
populations. This concern has led to the sponsorship of extensive studies and
surveys of the distribution and habits of marine bird and mammal populations
by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which is responsible for the leasing pro-
gram. In addition to contributing greatly to our general knowledge of the species
concerned, these studies have resulted in extensive information that has been
58 HIRSCH
used to exclude certain particularly sensitive areas from leasing and to modify
certain aspects of the development program, such as limiting exploratory drilling
in the vicinity of important bird colonies during the nesting period.
At first glance, maintenance of population information may appear to be a
Herculean task, involving not only inventories but also periodic monitoring to
assess Status and trends. Yet a significant start could be made by providing reports
that consolidate and interpret existing data to provide a synoptic or historic view.
Probably the richest source of population information is data on managed species
collected by fish and wildlife agencies. Breeding bird surveys and Audubon Christ-
mas bird counts provide information on the status and trends of avifauna. Other
sources are found in various individual research studies.
Surveys of habitat loss also provide important correlative information. The
effects of forest habitat fragmentation are reflected in reductions in the population
of warblers and other passerine birds. A report on wetlands status and trends,
compiled by the FWS National Wetlands Inventory (Tiner, 1984), which interprets
past and current aerial photography to determine rates of wetlands loss, could be
used in concert with population trend information on waterfowl and other fauna.
Habitat inventories often have the advantage of being easier to conduct than
direct population surveys; for many types of animals we still lack reliable and
cost-effective methods to inventory and monitor population numbers on a regional
or national scale.
Systematic interpretation of existing information, perhaps on a national basis,
would be an important first step. Initial efforts of a national biological survey to
compile information on population distribution and trends would, of necessity,
focus on high interest species. Over time, however, a broader picture might emerge
that would provide realistic assessments of trends in loss of genetic diversity and
provide early warning concerning species that ultimately will become candidates
for threatened and endangered species lists.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Maintaining information on the status and trends of various species is closely
related to the issue of biological monitoring. Monitoring to assess environmental
conditions is one of the most useful applications of biological information in
environmental management.
An important application of biological monitoring is the use of organisms as
accumulators of contaminants. Various organisms used for this purpose include
honeybees, earthworms, birds, and fish. FWS studies of contaminants in fish and
in such ubiquitous birds as starlings and ducks have provided valuable infor-
mation on environmental build-up and decay of PCB and DDT. EPA developed
the protocol for a marine monitoring system called ‘““Mussel Watch’’, in which
mussel tissue from various estuaries was analyzed to assess build-up of contam-
inants in the marine environment. The monitoring of fish tissue contaminated
with metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons is routinely used to determine the need
for public health limitations on fish consumption. A related aspect that has re-
ceived increased attention, and which might be relevant to those elements of a
national biological survey associated with museum collections, is establishment
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 59
of tissue banks to provide a basis for future comparison of environmental con-
ditions.
A second aspect of biological monitoring is use of organisms themselves as
indicators of environmental quality. There are many examples. Evaluation of
benthic invertebrate and diatom populations has been a long-standing tool in
water quality assessments. Absence of lichens can be an indicator of air pollution.
Recent reports of failures of salamanders to spawn have been interpreted as an
early warning of possible increases in acid deposition in the Rocky Mountain
area. This category of monitoring can be more difficult to evaluate because natural
spatial and temporal variability make both detection and interpretation of human-
induced changes difficult, whereas measuring anthropogenic compounds may be
somewhat more straightforward.
The FWS and EPA recently completed a joint fisheries survey, described as the
first statistically designed national survey of the status of waters, fish communities,
and limiting factors affecting those communities (Judy et al., 1984). A statistical
sample of river segments was assessed by use of questionnaires and existing data
bases. The findings, while preliminary, are important because they serve as a
general indicator or surrogate for the quality status of the nation’s waters and
because they also provide important information on the status of the fishery
resource. This survey used information on sport, threatened and endangered fish
species, and other species of special concern as indicators of biological status.
There also have been other efforts to develop more comprehensive fish community
analyses for use in environmental assessment (Karr, 1981).
An intriguing linkage of both aspects of biomonitoring was suggested in a report
of the National Science Foundation on long term ecological measurements (Na-
tional Science Foundation, 1977). That report identified seabird populations as
potentially important indicators of marine environmental quality. Marine birds
are long-lived and, although widely dispersed much of the year, are highly con-
centrated during the nesting season, so reasonably accurate statistical sampling
can be conducted. Because these birds are high in the food chain, they are potential
accumulators of contaminants as well as integrators of ocean ecosystem condi-
tions. To detect wide scale environmental changes in the ocean, it might be feasible
to design long term sampling programs that combine reliable monitoring of nesting
areas through aerial photography, species composition studies, and sampling of
tissue and eggs for contaminants. Thus, seabirds might be used as an early warning
system to detect impacts of ocean contamination.
The scope and scale of biological monitoring can vary widely, as can its fun-
damental purpose. Biological monitoring can be used to measure site-specific
changes, as in the case of benthic organisms downstream from an effluent dis-
charge. Currently EPA is using biomonitoring to measure the toxicity of complex
industrial effluents and to assure that industrial plants comply with pollution
control requirements. There is probably little role for a national biological survey
in such site-specific applications.
Increasingly, however, environmental protection programs involve evaluation
of problems of wide-scale regional or even global scope. Carefully designed long-
term biological monitoring can help detect wide-scale biosphere changes associ-
ated with such environmental problems as acid deposition, climate warmings
60 HIRSCH
from the “greenhouse effect’’, ozone reductions by chlorofluorocarbon discharges,
and long-range atmospheric transport of toxic contaminants.
The United Nations Environment Program has initiated a Global Environ-
mental Monitoring Program, which incorporates ecological components, and the
National Science Foundation has sponsored development of a long-term ecosys-
tems monitoring network on carefully selected experimental ecological reserves
to encourage a systematic approach. UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere program
also sponsors long term monitoring in biosphere reserves. Although a number of
such programs are already underway, progress is spotty. A national biological
survey could help provide standardization, comparability, and continuity in those
aspects of biological monitoring that involve a long term commitment and wide
scale regional or global networks.
ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION AND INVENTORY
Thus far, I have focused largely on information on plant and animal species.
However, much of the thrust of environmental protection is to address the full
range of impacts that occur at a place or a class of places (e.g., salt marshes, arctic
tundra). The geographic scope of concern may be narrowly site-specific or very
broad in scale. We may be evaluating impacts of hazardous wastes in the im-
mediate vicinity of a disposal site, addressing the effects of a nuclear electric power
generating plant on an estuary, or assessing the impacts of acid deposition in the
Northeastern United States. In each case, we are concerned with effects on the
ecosystem as well as on individual components. A national survey could provide
important information on the distribution of ecosystem types, analogous to its
role in the systematic compilation of information on taxa.
Ecological inventories are assuming increasing importance in environmental
management. For example, the FWS National Wetlands Inventory, which surveys
and maps the distribution of wetlands nationwide, provides essential information
for use in wetland protection programs. EPA is currently conducting a National
Lakes Survey to assess trends in acidification as part of a nationwide acid de-
position research program. Inventories of the distribution of ecological commu-
nities collected by the Nature Conservancy and its State Natural Heritage Pro-
grams provide an important guide to the Conservancy’s acquisition and
preservation programs.
Ecological classification systems are integral to an inventory effort. Such systems
help us organize knowledge by simplifying complex interrelationships to identify
geographic areas and ecosystems with similar properties. Classification systems
provide the structure for designing inventory programs and aggregating the re-
sultant masses of data.
Because similar ecological units should respond in a like manner to the same
environmental stresses or management remedies, classification systems also in-
crease our ability to generalize, to extrapolate research results from one area to
another, and to transfer management experience. Thus, ecological classification
systems can be a powerful tool in environmental management.
There are various approaches to ecosystem classification, and I will not discuss
them in detail here. However, any system designed for a national biological survey
should probably be a primary system based on biosphere components such as
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 61
climate, soils, and vegetation. Such a system could also serve as a foundation
from which to define land classes in terms of various environmental or resource
management attributes and potentials. For example, in the well-developed area
of soil classification, the basic taxonomy has supported derivation of various
secondary classification systems, such as those describing land capability for ag-
ricultural purposes.
Primary classification systems for natural resource surveys should be hierar-
chical to permit inclusion or organization of information at different levels of
generalization. Input data and user needs exist at levels ranging from global at
one end of the spectrum to local and site-specific at the other. Hierarchical clas-
sifications provide a basis for designing surveys, mapping units, and analyzing at
different scales and levels of detail. Many ecological classification systems are
currently in use. An important and demanding task for a national biological survey
would be to find ways of harmonizing or linking these to permit comparability
of information.
A second aspect of an ecological inventory is the selection of methods, which
can range from on-the-ground surveys to the use of aerial photography and satellite
imagery. Recent developments in remote sensing, photointerpretation, and com-
puter applications have revolutionized ecological inventories by dramatically im-
proving the capability to collect reliable information over vast land areas and to
prepare maps or digitized information at various scales. Yet many features still
require extensive ground observations—for example, the presence or absence of
various species.
Finally, and most difficult, is establishment of quantitative relationships be-
tween ecosystem types and various species of interest. For example, determining
the habitat value of various ecosystem types for wildlife may require extensive
analyses of the life requirements for food, cover, water, and reproductive habitat
of individual species. Such information may be needed to assess the environmental
impact of various proposed developments and management schemes.
Over five years ago, a review of federal agency wildlife habitat inventories and
needs stated:
**_. the National Wetlands Inventory is systematically gathering information on
the extent and distribution of various wetland types in accordance with a hi-
erarchical classification system. The need now is for a systematic method of
describing all values (for example, ecological, hydrologic, etc.) associated with
each wetlands type. Considerable information is available on the wildlife as-
sociated with, or dependent on, some wetlands types and complexes of wetland
types; less on others. What is required is a systematic means of structuring and
cataloging such information, so that it can be usefully correlated with the in-
formation resulting from the Inventory on extent and distribution of wetlands
at different levels in the hierarchical classification scheme.” (Hirsch et al., 1979)
Despite intense interest in wetlands protection, that need is still unmet today.
An important niche that a national biological survey could fill is a means of
systematically correlating the environmental requirements of various plant and
animal species, in concert with ecological classification systems. If the systematics
studies sponsored by the survey include information that help define species-
62 HIRSCH
habitat relationships, they will be of increased usefulness in environmental pro-
tection.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Recognition that information management is a central and vital function of the
proposed national biological survey is reflected by the prominent role of that topic
on the agenda of this symposium. An effective information management program
would help make existing biological information available and useful to environ-
mental managers and could help develop greater comparability and consistency
in future data collection efforts. Because this topic will be covered extensively
elsewhere, I want to make only several points concerning information manage-
ment here.
First, with respect to data base management, it is critical that such systems be
designed with user needs in mind. For example, for some applications, data bases
organized along taxonomic lines can serve environmental management needs.
There has been considerable effort to develop statewide fish and wildlife species
data bases that can address such topics as distribution of animals, their habitat
requirements, and the response of animals and habitat to alternative land uses
and management practices.
For other applications, systems organized along taxonomic lines would com-
pletely fail to meet management needs. For example, an existing biological in-
formation system was designed for use in water pollution control, but was or-
ganized principally along taxonomic lines. Data was entered and stored by species
designation. The system therefore could provide information about the distri-
bution of individual species of benthic invertebrates and plankton. However, for
purposes of most water pollution analyses, information is needed about conditions
by river reach. What is needed is a composite of biological information, water
quality data, and data concerning waste discharges to provide an integral picture
of conditions for each river reach. Thus the utility of the existing system is sharply
limited, since the systems design failed to adequately consider user need.
Second, it is essential that the biological survey not only collect and store
information but that it also synthesize such information to make it useful to the
environmental manager. This may involve preparation of interpretive reports that
characterize ecosystems or communities and their likely responses to stress, on
the basis of the compilation of all available information from various sources.
An example is the FWS community profile series (Jaap, 1984).
Information can also be made available through interactive computer systems
and models that permit data manipulation to assess environmental impacts or
the results of various management policies. Applied ecology has made significant
strides in the past decade, with developments in remote sensing, photo interpre-
tation, computer graphics, and simulation modeling. Increased availability of
personal computers provides means of making these techniques accessible and
useful to environmental managers as well as to researchers.
Environmental scientists are also beginning to explore applications of artificial
intelligence, such as computerized expert systems that capture the information
and problem solving processes of experts for use by less specialized personnel. If
we cannot envision the survey going that far towards “‘high technology”’, at least
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 63
initially, it could provide a useful service by simply maintaining registers of
biological experts.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To be most useful for application to environmental protection, a national
biological survey should include information on population biology and
ecology as well as taxonomy. Ecological information can be structured best
within the framework of a hierarchical ecosystem classification scheme, which
will strengthen our ability to apply research results and management expe-
rience to situations with similar properties. The survey should include in-
ventory systems using remote imagery and photo-interpretation along with
geobased information systems to store and manipulate the data. Taxonomic,
life history, and species distribution studies could be fit within the framework
of such a system, in effect combining a top-down bottom-up approach.
2. A wealth of relevant information is already being collected by universities,
government agencies, and other sources, but existing information is often
characterized by lack of comparability and accessability. An important and
demanding first step in organizing a national biological survey should be to
focus on means of making existing information available and on promoting
consistency and comparability.
3. In addition, it is important that the survey analyze and interpret available
information to provide reports relevant to the needs of environmental man-
agers. Examples are reports showing shifts in the distribution of species,
communities or ecosystems over time and ecological profiles that synthesize
existing information on the ecology of selected ecosystems or communities.
4. Strong emphasis also should be placed on development and use of modern
information systems technology and information networking to provide ac-
cess to existing information sources through on-line systems, interactive
models, registers of experts, and such emerging techniques as expert systems.
Interactive information systems that can enable managers to address ques-
tions concerning the distribution of flora and fauna and their likely response
to environmental stress are important products.
5. To remain viable and relevant, the national biological survey should incor-
porate strong provisions for interaction with the user community and for
providing services and output meaningful to that community as well as to
the scientific community. Further, to be successful and to grow, the fledgling
survey must make useful information products available early on, even while
it is laying the base for longer term accomplishments.
6. As compared with a more traditional taxonomic effort, a survey designed
along the above lines would be very complex and expensive and would
involve a number of formidable conceptual as well as managerial problems.
It could not accomplish these goals overnight any more than the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey has established a framework for geological information in the
U.S. overnight or than the U.S. Soil Conservation Service has done for soils.
However, the planning framework for this broader effort could be established
from the outset. The benefits would be much greater utility and a broader
64 HIRSCH
base of support. This is clearly a key tradeoff that the organizers and sponsors
of the national biological survey will have to make in determining the scope
and objectives of this important endeavour.
LITERATURE CITED
Beanlands, G. E. & P. N. Duinker. 1985. An ecological framework for environmental impact as-
sessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environment Studies, Dalhousie University and
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, ISBN 0-7703-0460-5.
Hirsch, A., W. B. Krohn, D. L. Schweitzer, & C. H. Thomas. 1979. Trends and needs in federal
inventories of wildlife habitat. In: Transactions of the 44th North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
Jaap, W.C. 1984. The ecology of the South Florida coral reefs: a community profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service, FWS/OBS-82/08, MMS 84-0038. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Jones, P. W., J. D. Hardy, Jr., G. D. Johnson, R. A. Fritzche, F. D. Martin & G. E. Drewry. 1978.
Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic-Bight: an atlas of egg, larvae and juvenile states. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS 78/12. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Judy, R. D., Jr., P. Seeley, T. M. Murray, S. C. Svirsky, M. Whitworth, & L. S. Ischinger. 1984.
1982 National fisheries survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
National Science Foundation. 1977. Long-term ecological measurement. Report of a conference.
Woods Hole, Massachusetts, March 16-18, 1977.
Resh, V. H. & J.D. Unzicker. 1975. Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance
of species identification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47(1):9-19.
Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biota of freshwater ecosystems. Water Pollution Con-
trol Series, 18050. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Agricultural Research:
the Importance of a
National Biological Survey
to Food Production
Waldemar Klassen
Agricultural Research Service
Abstract: For agriculture to become more efficient and more sustainable, we
must be in a position to rationally manage not just crops and livestock, but
also all beneficial and harmful organisms in the agroecosystem. A national
biological survey would contribute to our ability to readily identify all agri-
culturally significant organisms (both before and after harvest) and to elucidate
their roles and interactions.
Specifically, a national biological survey would be directly beneficial to ag-
riculture by 1) providing information on germplasm resources that may be
used to improve existing species of crops and livestock and to develop entirely
new species of crops and livestock, 2) providing knowledge needed to a) enhance
the activities of beneficial symbionts in essential processes such as nitrogen
fixation, b) enhance the ability of mycorrhizae on or in roots of crops to facilitate
the absorption of nutrients, and c) enhance the ability of microflora to break-
down crop and pesticide residues at appropriate rates, 3) facilitating the use in
crop production of additional species of indigenous pollinating insects, 4) en-
hancing the actions of natural enemies of plant pathogens, nematodes, insects,
and weeds in agricultural ecosystems, 5) identifying and coping with the tens
of thousands of species of indigenous and immigrant pests in U.S. agriculture,
and 6) coping with numerous pathogens and arthropods that reduce the value
of harvested products and sometimes cause importing countries to deny entry
of U.S. products.
Overall, a national biological survey would contribute to increased produc-
tion efficiency, more effective and less detrimental use of fertilizers and pes-
ticides, reduced losses caused by pests, reduced tillage, reduced soil erosion,
more efficient use of water, improved air quality, better plant and animal health,
more nutritious and wholesome food, and an improved balance of trade.
Keywords: Efficiency, Perpetual Sustainability, Ecological Impacts of Agri-
culture, Germplasm, Pollination, Nitrogen Fixation, Crop Improvement, Pest
Management, Mycorrhizae.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the importance of a proposed national
biological survey in relation to food production in the U.S. Agriculture is the
production of food, fiber, and other materials by means of the controlled use of
65
66 KLASSEN
plants and animals (Spedding et al., 1981). Agriculture is always concerned with
two things, namely the efficient use of inputs and perpetual sustainability (de Wit
et al., 1985). Thus, as a minimum, the net output of calories in agriculture must
exceed the net input of calories supplied by muscle and machine power. We need
crops and livestock that more efficiently convert nutrients into desired products.
The ability of crops and livestock to be more efficient is affected by tens of
thousands of species of beneficial and harmful organisms that share agricultural
ecosystems with our favored economic species of crops and livestock. Thus, the
rational management of the agroecosystem should be based on knowledge of all
of its living components and on their beneficial and harmful roles and interactions.
Agriculture is neither practiced under asceptic conditions nor in total isolation
from natural ecosystems; agricultural ecosystems impact on natural ecosystems
and natural ecosystems impact on agricultural ecosystems. For example, some of
the nitrogen that is added as fertilizer to agricultural fields eventually also fertilizes
wilderness areas because microorganisms convert crop residues and animal ma-
nures into ammonia which precipitates in rain (Ryden and Garwood, 1984).
Similarly, some pesticides may move far from the fields in which they are applied.
Such movement of agricultural chemicals is wasteful, and much can be done to
reduce it. Nevertheless, it is important to be able to accurately assess the extent
to which agricultural uses of fertilizers and pesticides affect ecological processes
in non-agricultural areas.
On the other hand, natural ecosystems export many pests to agricultural fields.
Crops in the western U.S. are particularly vulnerable to invasions of pathogen-
bearing arthropods from natural ecosystems. Examples include the pathogens of
citrus stubborn disease and sugarbeet yellows, both of which are transmitted by
leafhoppers that invade agricultural fields from the adjacent desert vegetation.
Similarly, various species of wildlife serve as reservoirs for various viral, bacterial,
protozoan, and helminthic diseases of livestock. Clearly, a national biological
survey would provide a basis for understanding better the functioning of both
natural ecosystems, and of agricultural ecosystems, and it would help in analyses
of the impact of the two categories of ecosystems on each other. Moreover, a
national biological survey would help in analyses of the impacts of industries and
cities on both natural ecosystems and agroecosystems.
A national biological survey would be directly beneficial to agriculture by pro-
viding information on germplasm resources that may be used to improve existing
species of crops and livestock and for developing entirely new species of crops
and livestock. The survey could result in knowledge needed to a) enhance the
activities of beneficial symbionts in essential processes such as nitrogen fixation,
b) enhance the ability of mycorrhizae on or in roots of crops to facilitate the
absorption of nutrients, and c) enhance the ability of microflora to break down
crop and pesticide residues at appropriate rates.
The survey could result in the use in crop production of additional species of
indigenous pollinating insects. This will become especially important if the Af-
ricanized bee and certain mite parasites of the honey bee become established in
North America.
A national biological survey would be very helpful in enhancing the actions of
natural enemies of plant pathogens, nematodes, insects, and weeds in agricultural
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 67
ecosystems. The survey would help us to identify and cope with the tens of
thousands of species of indigenous and immigrant pests in U.S. agriculture. The
survey could help us to cope with numerous pathogens (Watson, 1971) and ar-
thropods that reduce the value of harvested products and sometimes cause 1m-
porting countries to deny entry of U.S. products. Overall, a national biological
survey would contribute to increased production efficiency, more effective and
less detrimental use of fertilizers and pesticides, reduced losses caused by pests,
reduced tillage, reduced soil erosion, more efficient use of water, improved quality
of air, better plant and animal health, and more nutritious and wholesome food.
I wish to expand somewhat on these points. With regard to crop and livestock
germplasm, contemporary agriculture is still highly dependent on the decisions
that were made by our ancestors during the Stone Age as to which species of
plants and animals to domesticate for food and fiber production. In Europe, wheat,
barley, millet, and flax were domesticated during the Neolithic Age, whereas oats
and field beans were domesticated during the Bronze Age.
The Indians of the Americas introduced the early European settlers to maize,
white potatoes, sweet potatoes, tobacco, peanuts, some varieties of squashes, field
pumpkins, sunflower, Jerusalem artichokes, tomatoes, garden peppers, pineapples,
watermelons, and various medicinal plants (Klages, 1949; Train et al., 1957).
About one-third of U.S. agriculture is native American.
In recent centuries, we have profoundly improved the crops and livestock that
were domesticated before the dawn of history. Yet in recent decades, only a few
wild species have been adapted as significant food crops, an example being blue-
berries. Instead, most of the new plant species that have been domesticated in
the U.S. in recent decades are floral and landscape plants.
Only 3 percent of the world’s vascular plant species, or about 10,000, have
been examined, at least superficially, as potential sources of vegetable oil, fiber,
gums, antitumor agents, and high-energy sources (Agricultural Research Service,
1982a).
Many traits possessed by wild species would be useful in domestic plants. These
traits include increased photosynthetic efficiency, tolerance to drought, frost, toxic
soils, pests, etc. By means of embryo rescue via tissue culture, it 1s now possible
to obtain useful hybrids from very wide crosses. Eventually, genetic engineering
techniques will be used to transfer chromosomes and chromosomal genes between
very divergent taxa. By means of protoplast fusion techniques, the genes that
reside in plant mitochondria and in chloroplasts can be transferred between some
taxa.
There is a need for many additional species of landscape plants, especially on
the Great Plains and in our desert communities. Although many native U.S. trees
and shrubs have been used for landscape planting since the earliest settlements,
to this day many native species are little known or appreciated for their potential
as landscape plants. As shown in Table 1, even those landscape plants now in
cultivation have been relatively little exploited with respect to their germplasm
potential. These plants include oak, maple, birch, ash, pine, elm, hickory, and
others.
The adaptability of U.S. germplasm favors native U.S. plants for landscape use.
This cannot be said for exotic species brought into the country, many of which
68
Table 1.
NO —
KLASSEN
Use of some native U.S. trees in the landscape. The number of U.S. species is derived from
Elbert L. Little, Jr. Checklist of United States Trees (1979): The number of species in the trade
(column 2) has been derived from Sources of Plants and Related Supplies (1979-1980 edition),
published by the American Association of Nurserymen. (*) Genera with a few known cultivars.
Abies (True fir)
*Acer (Maple)
* Aesculus (Buckeye)
Alnus (Alder)
* Betula (Birch)
Carya (Hickory)
Catalpa (Catalpa)
* Celtis (Hackberry)
Chamaecyparis (White cedar)
*Cornus (Dogwood)
* Crataegus (Hawthorn)
*Fraxinus (Ash)
* Juniperus (Juniper)
Liriodendron (Tulip tree)
*Magnolia
* Malus (Crabapple)
* Picea (Spruce)
*Pinus (Pine)
Platanus (Plane)
* Populus (Poplar)
Prunus (Plum)
* Quercus (Oak)
* Robinia (Locust)
*Rhus (Sumac)
Styrax (Storax)
*Ulmus (Elm)
No. U.S. species
—
pee
AN ena wOonN eK OO
an — Ww
NW — BR NM OC} CW ~] ~]
—v
No. U.S. species
in the trade
—"
NONN NA WWNDHBN WRK DWANWN RK KK RK KK DMN
. The above list includes some of the most important trees used in the U.S. for landscape purposes.
. Genera with an asterisk (*) already have some known cultivars, nearly all produced in nurseries,
not as a result of scientific breeding research.
3. Note the number of U.S. species as compared with the number of species in the nursery trade.
4. Scientific breeding research on any of the above named genera could generate valuable new selections
and hybrids for the landscape, covering all parts of the U.S.
5. The above table was prepared by Dr. F. A. Meyer, U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C.
have a narrow genetic base. The use of U.S. germplasm offers the possibility of
sampling, at close range, the total complement of genetic variability of native
species over their entire range. In a survey, this factor is essential for the estab-
lishment of a germplasm bank to assess genetic variability and test provenance.
In the U.S., we have made very great progress in developing the National Plant
Germplasm System (United States Department of Agriculture, 1981). This system
currently maintains well over 500,000 accessions of crops and their wild relatives
in the form of seed and vegetatively propagated stocks.
The most serious weaknesses in the system include 1) inadequate number of
trained collectors, 2) problems.in identifying requested domestic material, and 3)
the omission of domestic material in most collections.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 69
Beneficial symbionts colonize or frequent agricultural fields. To become more
efficient and sustainable, agricultural specialists must husband beneficial sym-
bionts with the same care and effectiveness that is devoted to the crop. To husband
these symbionts, we need to know their identities and roles.
The soil adjacent to plant roots is a zone of intense microbial and biochemical
activity. This region, known as the rhizosphere, is the most complex and least
understood part of the edaphic environment influencing plant vigor and health.
It is the region where mineral uptake, water extraction, root pathogen invasion,
root exudation of readily soluble materials, release of sloughed cells, chelation
and release of minor elements, and localized changes in reaction and red-ox
potential take place. It is in the rhizosphere that complex interactions occur
between blue-green algae and bacterial diazotrophs including Spirillum, Ana-
beana, Bacillus enterobacter, Azotobacter, and others (Hardy et al., 1975).
Some beneficial fungi known as mycorrhizae live in very close association with
the roots of plants. The mycelia of the mycorrhizae radiate into the surrounding
soil and thereby greatly expand the effective surface of the root for increasing
water and nutrient absorption. A bacterial flora is also observed in association
with the mycorrhizae. Mycorrhizae may also protect crops from infection by
pathogens such as Phytophthora (Baker and Cook, 1974).
The taxonomy of mycorrhizae has yet to be fully developed. Many endomy-
corrhizae cannot be cultured in vitro. Taxonomic, ecological, and physiological
research is urgently needed as a basis for enhancing the beneficial activity of
mycorrhizae in agricultural fields.
Microorganisms in the soil provide plants with nutrients by the cycling of
minerals by decomposing plant and animal matter (Lynch, 1983). Agricultural
scientists are investigating the effects of agricultural residue management on mi-
crobiological properties of soils and the interactions of these microbiological prop-
erties on the conservation and productivity of soils, on plant health and nutrition,
and on the quality of crops. Such studies are particularly germane as more and
more farmers are discarding the plow and adopting conservation tillage practices.
We rely on the microbial degradation of pesticides in the soil to guard our
ground water supply from pesticide contamination. Scientists are attempting to
identify and develop improved microbial forms for this purpose. On the other
hand, in some soils, microbial populations have assembled that degrade pesticides
so rapidly that harmful target species are not affected. We are in our infancy in
terms of understanding and dealing with these “‘problem soils” (Kaufman and
Edwards, 1983).
Pollination by bees and other insects is needed to assure seed production in
many crops (Agricultural Research Service, 1976). The improvement of polli-
nation would increase yields in the order of 10 percent (Agricultural Research
Service, 1976). The introduced European honey bee is a good general pollinator
but is less effective than some solitary bees on certain crops. Solitary bees are
distributed among nine families, and perhaps many species could have an en-
hanced role in agriculture (Batra, 1984). In the northwestern U.S. and Canada,
two species of solitary bees—the alfalfa leafcutter bee and the alkali bee—are now
being managed intensively to aid in production of alfalfa seed. These examples
70 KLASSEN
suggest the magnitude of benefits that would accrue in other crops if we had a
better knowledge of native bees.
Because of the anticipated invasion of North America by the Africanized honey
bee and by various exotic mite parasites of the honey bee, it seems likely that
interest in greater utilization of indigenous pollinators will mount substantially.
One of the most dramatic examples of the control of a pest by its natural enemies
occurred in Los Angeles about 100 years ago. At that time, the cottonycushion
scale had become established and was destroying the citrus industry. Its natural
enemy, the vedalia beetle, was introduced from Australia. In short order, the
vedalia beetle reduced the cottonycushion scale population to an inconsequential
level and assured the future of the citrus industry in southern California. Since
that time, there have been numerous successes in the practical biological control
of insect pests by (1) importation of natural enemies from abroad, (2) conservation
of indigenous natural enemies, and (3) augmentation of indigenous natural ene-
mies by releases of mass-reared parasites and predators.
It is not uncommon to find 30,000 to 50,000 parasites and predators in an acre
of cotton or soybeans. The ecology and relative importance of these beneficial
insects is poorly understood. Nevertheless, Pimental et al. (1980) estimated that
the inadvertent destruction of a portion of them by insecticides had increased the
annual cost of insect control by almost $300 million in the U.S.
During the past decade, a number of exciting developments occurred in the
biological control of plant diseases and weeds. Indigenous fungi have been dis-
covered that strongly suppress soilborne disease agents including Rhizoctonia,
Fusarium, Pythium, Sclerotinia, and Verticillium (Agricultural Research Service,
1984; Papavizas and Lewis, 1981).
Bacillus thuringiensis has been found to control Cercospora leafspot of peanuts,
Alternaria leafspot of tobacco, and brown rot disease of peaches and other stone
fruits. Bacillus subtilis gives reasonable control of bean rust on highly susceptible
cultivars of dry bean and snap bean (Baker et al., 1985). Similarly, a bacteriophage
has been shown to effectively control certain pathovars of Xanthomonas cam-
pestris, which causes bacterial leafspot on peaches and apricots (Randhawa and
Civerolo, 1985).
Even certain viruses may be subject to an intracellular form of biological control.
Kaper and Waterworth (1981) showed that a certain RNA satellite (CARNA 5)
of cucumber mosaic virus can suppress replication of the virus. These results were
applied in China by Tien and Chang (1983), who used protective inoculation with
CARNA 5 to control tomato mosaic virus and cucumber mosaic virus in tomato
and pepper, which resulted in yield increases of up to 60 percent.
Some weeds are effectively controlled by insects. This has been dramatically
demonstrated by the importation, release, and establishment in the U.S. of the
insect enemies of exotic rangeland and aquatic weeds. Well-known examples
include the control of Klamath weed by Chrysolina beetles and control of alligator
weed by several species of beetles. However, until recently the possibility of using
biological agents against cropland weeds was not seriously considered because
biological agents must be host-specific. A cultivated field normally is infested with
at least 20-30 species of weeds, and the removal of one species results in its
immediate replacement by the other weed species. However, the biological control
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH fal
of weed species has been shown to be feasible in rice and soybean fields by means
of mixtures of fungal pathogens (Emge and Templeton, 1981).
Recent progress has shown the possibility of using species of the genera Al/ter-
naria, Septoria, Colletotrichum, Fusarium, Protomyces, and Cephalosporium to
control weeds (Agricultural Research Service, 1984). Nevertheless, the surface has
scarcely been scratched in identifying the indigenous organisms whose activites
might be utilized in weed control.
The advent of the release of recombinant DNA into the environment, coupled
with mounting concern over endangered species, is causing a thorough review of
policies and procedures involved in the release of alien or exotic biological control
organisms in the U.S. A national biological survey would provide much valuable
information that is needed to develop Environmental Assessments and Environ-
mental Impact Statements that are required for the release of genetically-engi-
neered organisms. As shown in Table 2, about 16,000 species in the U.S. are
known to be pests. These pests include insects, disease pathogens, weeds, nema-
todes, snails, slugs, birds, rodents, and other animals (Sutherland et al., 1984).
Approximately 1,000 of these species cause severe losses each year (Agricultural
Research Service, 1984).
U.S. agriculture has disrupted natural ecological systems on the same order of
magnitude as occurs in the wake of major geological changes. We have replaced
diverse vegetational assemblages (prairie, deciduous forests, deserts, etc.) with
vast monocultures. Natural vegetation that has been left undisturbed by the plow
is exploited at intensities unlike those posed by herbivores in the past (Whitcomb,
personal communication). Simplification of ecosystems by the practice of mono-
culture in agriculture favors many pest species. In addition, many pest species
have been introduced into new areas without their natural enemies. Therefore,
pests are often more damaging in newly invaded areas than in areas where they
originated. On the other hand, many species of plants and breeds of domestic
animals have been introduced into new areas where they are attacked by a new
set of species against which they have no innate defenses.
The continental U.S. is very vulnerable to the introduction of exotic species,
many of which are pests. During the past 500 years, the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans have become progressively less effective as geographic barriers to invasion
by exotic species. According to Sutherland et al. (1984), there are about 13,000
known species of alien pests awaiting transportation into North America. About
6,000 of these species would probably be significant in North America. A prior
report by R. C. McGregor (1973) stated that there are 1,333 significant foreign
pests of which 22 are animal pathogens, 551 are plant pathogens, and 760 are
insects and other arthropods. A national biological survey would provide much
of the data needed to distinguish between indigenous and emigrant pests.
MAGNITUDE OF A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURAL NEEDS
The magnitude of the need for a survey in relation to agriculture can be judged
from the following discussion:
A. Prokaryotes—Prokaryotes lack a nuclear membrane and organelles such as
KLASSEN
ro
"uosuyof “T “Y pue ‘pueplayins *§ “AA ‘q ‘UOsInuyY “T ‘s1opIduI0D oY} WO s[quiTeAe OIB UOTJEULIOJUI JO S9dINOS :3010N
‘epeuey pue SojeB1S PoHIUA
“SOPOLVUIOU JULIVUI PUP ‘S]OISUI JO Soye1OOSSe PUP SoLISvIed ‘[IOS UI SULIOJ SNOsddepold pue BUTAT]-90JJ ‘soyIsered yURd sopnyoUy] ;
“spliq pue sjewueW Jo soyisered uvozojoid pue syjUuTWoYy ATUO sopnjouy ,
‘syJUIWOY puke eOZ010Ig A[UO sopnjouy “(AN[NOod ‘ours ‘sosloy ‘syeos ‘dooys ‘o]}1e9) syeuTUe OTsOWIOG ;
‘popnyour ose sjsoduou pure sjsod Jo Joquinu [e}10} 94} “6-9 SUUINIOD JOJ ;
"SIseq Je[NZaI & UO SUOTIOV [O.UOD JURLIVM 0} YSNOUD SNOLIOS 9q 0} p9dU OU SsaOp so1eds v ,,‘\sod,, B se AjITenb OT, ‘sNOLIa}a;ap 9q 0} AJOxI] JO speutue oNssWOp
IO sjuvjd njosn ‘ueU 0} (satdeds SATeU JO UOISNJOXS dATJOdUIOD ‘3'9 “JORdUIT DAT}EZOU I9Y}O IO SSO] STUIOUODS ZUISNeD) SNOLIOJAJIp Sordods B SB POUYop SI Sod ;
897° 000°€ 000‘0r 000°09 OOI-SZ 88 Ysty
cee * O00€ O0€‘r 000°9 Cc 0 suviqryduy
69€ 00r 000°9 000°L 0 0 sondoy
06P 00S OLI'b 00€"r 8 6 speure yl
90I‘T 90IT 009°8 000°6 0OT—0€ OOT—-0¢ OOT—-0¢ 3 L spate
sf OL of 9L :; 00S‘9T O0S‘LI I ke Sorptoung
uwOosLIeduiod Joj ‘exe} Jofewl UMOUY-}Ss9q UT soTdods JO SIoquUINNY “g
617'S 690°9 006°S8 00¢"98 IT1I-98 Ocl SO}BIQOLIO A
009°1Z OSL‘IZ SLL‘SIZ 000°8€Z OOT'S 000° OOL*P 006°T 00S SJULT_ IeTNOSeA
00S 000°T OOL 000°@ 000° 00S O0T OOT OOV SOQoIIU StUasoy}ed URI
000°9 000°SE 007'81 s000°801 000‘0€ 000°€1 000°Z OS 0S6 Sopojeurou oiyIsered Jue]
000°62 000°001 000°0L 000°0SZ 000°rI 000°S 000°r 000° 000°8 iduny s1uosoyjed jury]
000°9 r000°0€-07 000°rZ +000°09I-000°001 LCS 00S Cll 00¢ vil cSUISTULSIOOIOIU OSvoSIP [BUITUY
00s*s 000°9 000°7r 008°9b 0S6 006 OOT OS cS sosn{[OJT
000°L 000°0€-07 000‘0r-0€ +000°000°T 007'T OOP 00€ OST OS¢ SOUP
OOT‘L8 OOO'ISL | 000°000°0€-01 000°0I 000°9 009 698 000°S $}OOSU]
‘dds ‘dds ‘v's'n ‘dds pjiom ‘dds pjiom ‘ou sjsod vVvsnm vyvsnw vwsnaw vyvsnu
PoqLiosop “OU [B10} poqLiosap [e101 poleUtsy pjtom UI N990 0} =—-IND9O 0} poysty s}sod
vsn poleulns” ‘OU poyeUIs| [e101 uMOoUy}0OU UMOUY -qvejiso SATION
‘OU [R10], sjsod 10U S}sog sjsod
a ee ae el le ee oo ee eS Jenusj10g juvIs
so1deds 1s9 a)
zSol jsoduou pure jsog _wuy
1'S}sod opnypouUr jey} exe} Jofew UI soldods Jo sIOqUINNY “7 JIQeL
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH iE.
mitochondria. They include bacteria, spiroplasmas and rickettsia-like bac-
teria. The comprehensive cataloging of prokaryotes of interest to agriculture
would be a formidable task. Yet a comprehensive catalog would be of —
immense value in managing plant and animal diseases, ice-nucleation as a
cause of frost injury, growth promotion in vascular plants, nitrogen fixation,
decomposition of organic matter, etc.
B. Fungi—Only a small fraction of the species of fungi have been described.
For example, there are roughly two and one-half times more species of rust
fungi in our National Fungus Collections than have been reported in the
literature on plant pathology. In recent studies on the biological control of
plant pathogenic fungi, the most effective biocontrol fungi have been ones
that are new to science. There is a vast amount of taxonomic and ecological
work needed on microfungi, soilborne fungi, plant pathogenic fungi, my-
corrhizal fungi, and endophytic fungi (Batra et al., 1978).
C. Helminths—Helminths include flukes, tapeworms, and roundworms. Only
about 10 percent of the total known number of known taxa of nematodes
have been described, 1.e., 3,000 species are known and 30,000 species prob-
ably exist (Norton, 1978; Golden, 1968; Geographic Distribution Com-
mittee, 1983). A better knowledge of the nematode parasites of wildlife is
needed to better understand the epidemiology of parasitic diseases of do-
mestic ruminants (Al Sagur et al., 1982). Furthermore, the goal of developing
truly phylogenetic classifications, with the predictive powers they entail, for
the families of important livestock parasites cannot be achieved without
including species parasitic in wildlife (American Association of Veterinary
Pathologists, 1983; Lichtenfels et al., 1983; Lichtenfels and Pilitt, 1983).
D. Arthropods-Approximately 129,000 arthropod species have been described
from North American (Agricultural Research Service, 1982b). Most species
have been described only from a single stage, usually the adult, even though
economic damage in most cases is caused by the unidentifiable immature
stages. Thus Kosztarab (personal communication) estimated that for the
insects in North America there is a need for about 900,000 new life stage
descriptions, assuming that equal numbers of species remain undescribed
as are described and that most species have four developmental stages and
two sexes. In addition to insects, about 14,000 other terrestrial arthropods
are known from North America, such as mites (including chiggers), ticks,
spiders, and so forth. In addition, we need to bear in mind that field workers
other than professional taxonomists are able to identify less than one fourth
of the arthropod species.
E. Vascular Plants-About 22,000 vascular plants have been described from
the U.S. There are several regional floras of substance, either complete or
in preparation, and many state floras. Collectively, they provide tools for
the identification of most U.S. plants, but many suffer because they are out-
of-date and of limited geographic scope. Different taxonomic concepts have
been applied by different workers.
Clearly, the knowledge of our national flora inadequately supports such ventures
as describing germplasm diversity in relation to the development of new crops,
74 KLASSEN
providing a sound basis for identifying and preserving endangered species, sup-
porting the biological control of weeds, and identifying and coping with poisonous
plants on pasture and range.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Since the agricultural research community has both significant taxonomic
resources and pressing needs for information and germplasm, persons in-
volved in a national biological survey should maintain close communication
and interaction with agricultural research scientists.
2. A national biological survey should provide for the application of survey
data to elucidating the ecology of both managed and unmanaged ecosystems
as well as the interactions between these two categories of ecosystems.
3. Anational biological survey should give a relatively high priority to obtaining
data needed to develop identification manuals of organisms that are signif-
icant or potentially significant in agroecosystems.
4. A national biological survey should provide data as well as preserved and
living material relevant to agricultural interests in germplasm, beneficial
symbioses (especially in the rhizosphere), pollination, harmful organisms,
and natural enemies of harmful organisms.
In conclusion, for agriculture to become more efficient (as measured by calories
of output minus calories of input) and for agriculture to be more sustainable, we
must be in a position to rationally manage not just crops and livestock, but also
all beneficial and harmful organisms in the agroecosystem.
To the extent that a national biological survey would contribute to our ability
to readily identify all organisms that are significant to agriculture (both before
and after harvest) and to elucidate their roles and interactions, a national biological
survey would be a great benefit in helping the agricultural industry to provide the
world’s best food bargain to the American people and in making our products
more competitive in the world market.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply grateful for helpful suggestions from Drs. E. L. Civerolo, R. E.
Davis, R. A. Humber, L. Knutson, F. A. Meyer, W. L. Murphy, G. C. Papavizas,
R. E. Perdue, A. Y. Rossman, J. R. Lichtenfels, and R. T. Whitcomb; and the
persons who contributed information for Table 2, E. W. Baker, W. Dowler, A.
M. Golden, C. R. Gunn, R. L. Johnson, R. J. Lichtenfels, W. L. Murphy, A.
Rossman, and D. W. S. Sutherland.
LITERATURE CITED
Agricultural Research Service. 1976. Crop pollination and honey production, NRP No. 20180. 55
Agricultural Research Service. 1982a. Determine plant sources of useful raw materials and evaluate
their crop and production potential in terms of U.S. agricultural and industrial needs. Approach
Element 3.34. Unpublished document.
Agricultural Research Service. 1982b. Taxonomic research and services to support action programs.
Approach Element 3.34.1. Unpublished document.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH fis)
Agricultural Research Service. 1984. Research planning conference on biological control. U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office. 473 p.
Al Sagur, J. Armour, K. Bairden, et al. 1982. Field study on the epidemiology and pathogenicity of
different isolates of bovine Ostertagia spp. Res. Vet. Sci. 33: 313.
American Association of Veterinary Parasitologists. 1983. Research needs and priorities for ruminant
internal parasites in the United States. Am. J. Vet. Res. 44: 1-836.
Baker, C. J., N. Mock & J. R. Stavely. 1985. Biocontrol of bean rust by Bacillus subtilis under field
conditions. Plant Dis. (in press).
Baker, K. F. & R. J. Cook. 1974. Biological control of plant pathogens. W. H. Freeman and Co.,
San Francisco. 433 p.
Batra, S. W. T. 1984. Solitary bees. Sci. Am. 250 (2): 120-127.
Batra, L. R., D. R. Whitehead, E. E. Terrell, A. M. Golden, & J. R. Lichtenfels. 1978. Overview of
predictiveness of agricultural biosystematics. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2. Bio-
systematics in Agriculture. Allanheld, Osmun and Co., Montclair, New Jersey.
de Wit, C. T.. H. Huisman & R. Rabbinge. 1985. Agriculture and its environment: are there other
ways? In preparation.
Emge, R. G. & G. E. Templeton. 1981. Biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. Jn: G. C.
Papavizas (ed.) Biological control in crop production. Beltsville Symposium in Agricultural Re-
search. Allanheld, Osmund Publishers, Granada.
Geographical Distribution Committee. 1984. Distribution of plant-parasitic nematode species in North
America. Published by the Society of Nematologists. 205 p.
Golden, A.M. 1968. Nematology: Our society and science (Presidential Address). Nematology News
Letter. 14: 2-8.
Hardy, R. W. F., P. Filner & R. H. Hageman. 1975. Nitrogen input. In: Crop productivity research
imperatives. Mich. Agric. Exp. Station and C. F. Kettering Foundation. Yellow Spring, Ohio. 399
p.
Kaper, J. M. & H. E. Waterworth. 1977. Cucumber mosaic virus-associated RNAs: causal agent
for tomato necrosis. Science 196: 429.
Kaufman, D. D. & D. F. Edwards. 1983. Pesticide/microbe interaction effects on persistence of
pesticides in soil. Jn: Proc. pesticide chemistry: human welfare and the environment. Vol. 4 of
J. Miyamoto and P. C. Kearney, eds. Pesticide residues and formulation chemistry. Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
Klages, K. H. W. 1949. Ecological crop geography. The Macmillan Company, New York. 615 p.
Lichtenfels, J. R., K. D. Murrell, & P. A. Pilitt. 1983. Comparison of three subspecies of Trichinella
spiralis by scanning electron microscopy. J. Parasitol. 69: 1131-1140.
Lichtenfels, J. R. & P. A. Pilitt. 1983. Cuticular ridge patterns of Nematodirella (Nematoda: Tri-
chostrongyloidea) of North American ruminants, with a key to species. Syst. Parasitol. 5: 271.
Lynch, J. M. 1983. Soil Biotechnology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 191 p.
McGregor, R. C. 1973. The emigrant pests. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. 167 p.
Norton, D.C. 1978. Ecology of plant-parasitic nematodes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 268
p.
Papavizas, G. C. & J. A. Lewis. 1981. Introduction and augmentation of microbial antagonists for
the control of soilborne plant pathogens. Jn: G. C. Papavizas (ed.) Biological control in crop
production. Beltsville Symposium in Agricultural Research. Volume 5. Allanheld, Osmund Pub-
lishers, Granada.
Pimentel, D., D. Andow, D. Gallahan, I. Schreiner, T. E. Thompson, R. Dyson-Hudson, S. N. Jacob-
son, M. A. Irish, S. F. Kroop, A. M. Moss, M. D. Shepard & B. C. Vizant. 1980. Pesticides:
environmental and social costs. Jn: D. Pimentel & J. H. Perkins (eds.) Pest control: cultural and
environmental aspects. AAAS Selected Symposium Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 243 p.
Randhawa, P. S. & E. L. Civerolo. 1986. Biocontrol of Prunus bacterial spot disease by purified high
titre pruniphage. Plant Disease (in press).
Ryden, J. & E. Garwood. 1984. Evaluating the nitrogen balance of grassland. Jn: J. Hardcastle
(editor). Grassland Research Today. AFRC, London, United Kingdom. 28 p.
Spedding, C. R. W., J. M. Walsingham & A. M. Hoxey. 1981. Biological efficiency in agriculture.
Academic Press, London. 383 p.
76 KLASSEN
Sutherland, D. W. S., L. V. Knutson, J. R. Dogger & R. Johnson. 1984. The concept of a National
Agricultural Pest Register. Unpublished document.
Tien, P. & K. H. Chang. 1983. Control of two seed-borne virus diseases in China by the use of
protective inoculation. Seed. Sci. Technol. 11: 1-4.
Train, P., J. R. Henrichs & W. A. Archer. 1957. Medicinal uses of plants. Quarterman Publication,
Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts. 139 p.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1981. Zhe National Plant Germplasm System: current
status (1980). Strengths and weaknesses, long range plan (1983-1997). Washington, DC. 166 p.
Watson, A. J. 1971. Foreign bacterial and fungus diseases of food, forage and fiber crops: an anno-
tated list. U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook 418. 111 p.
Plant Protection and a
National Biological Survey
Ronald L. Johnson
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Abstract: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is en-
gaged in various activities to protect U.S. agriculture from plant pests, especially
those not known to occur in the United States. The first line of defense used
by APHIS is to impose quarantines and intercept pests at ports-of-entry. In
1983, 40,689 pests and pathogens were intercepted. Since all quarantines are
not 100 percent effective, a Cooperative National Plant Pest Survey and De-
tection Program (CNPPSDP) has been implemented as a second line of defense.
The program coordinates existing surveys for insects, weeds pathogens, nema-
todes, etc., to collect, store on a central computer, process, and retrieve plant
pest information. The program addresses plant pest information needs for
endemic and exotic pests and for export certification. Emphasis is on a multi-
agency and multidisciplinary coordinated biological survey and detection effort.
Keywords: Survey, Detection, Quarantine, APHIS, Computer, Exotic, Export
Certification, Endemic, Multiagency, Multidisciplinary.
INTRODUCTION
The economy of the United States, as well as that of the world, is extremely
vulnerable to widespread adverse weather conditions or pest infestations. We are
still incapable of controlling the weather, but modern research and defensive
tactics have allowed us to limit pest damage in some instances. In an attempt to
meet the world’s food and fiber needs, man has enhanced his vulnerability to
pests by changing nature’s balance and creating extremely unstable monocultures.
The balance has been further upset by mass transportation, which enables the
rapid relocation of biotic agents.
The complexity of the problem can be appreciated when one considers that
there are hundreds of thousands of described and undescribed species of insects,
weeds, nematodes, pathogens, and other organisms and that thousands of different
agricultural products enter dozens of U.S. ports each day. Add to these numbers
the millions of travelers who enter these ports each year, and it is obvious that a
very real risk to U.S. agriculture exists. Plant protection agencies in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the states employ methods to intercept
and eliminate plant pests. These agencies must also be capable of properly iden-
tifying these pests and carrying out the quarantine actions dictated by the regu-
lations of their country (Fowler, 1984).
oo!
78 JOHNSON
In response to problems involved with the movement of plant pests, Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), APHIS, USDA, was established. The primary
function of PPQ is to protect the U.S. from the destructive activities of exotic
and certain endemic plant pests. PPQ’s initial defensive tactic is to try and stop
the entry (movement) of exotic biotic agents into the’ U.S. Any quarantine or
regulatory measures used to achieve this goal are meant to promote and protect
agriculture, not to restrict trade.
In this presentation I will briefly describe the quarantine, regulatory, and control
measures used by PPQ to reduce the movement of unwanted biotic agents and
then summarize the goals and progress of the Cooperative National Plant Pest
Survey and Detection Program (CNPPSDP).
OPERATIONS OF PORT OF ENTRY
As a first line of defense against the entry of exotic pests into the U.S., PPQ
officers are stationed at ports of entry to inspect for and restrict the entry of
unwanted species. PPQ employees at these ports apply regulatory and quarantine
principles to imported agricultural products that enter the United States by land,
sea, air, and even by mail. All agricultural products entering the U.S. from foreign
areas and offshore locations are subject to inspection at the first U.S. port of entry.
The purpose of this system is to determine the presence or absence of plant pests
and prohibited agricultural materials (Fowler, 1984).
PPQ officers are trained in how and where to inspect for biotic agents. They
are provided with lists of undesirable exotic plant pests, recognized hosts, and
countries of occurrence. When officers are confronted with a pest or host, they
have several means of action at their disposal. The most common actions are to
inspect and release, to require that the infested items be treated, or to refuse entry
of the item. For example, if a traveler attempted to import plant material pro-
hibited by regulations because of potential harboring of latent viruses or other
undetectable pests, these items would be seized and destroyed or refused entry.
However, if the items were from a country in which no latent pests were known
from that product and no pests were observed during inspection, the plant material
would be inspected and released.
Some plants must be maintained through a post-entry quarantine growing pe-
riod (commonly 2 years), during which time they are observed for any previously
undetected exotic agents (for example, systemic plant diseases). Importers can
apply through PPQ for additional information on permits and conditions of entry.
PPQ-approved treatment of infested goods or goods suspected of being infested
is another option. A common treatment is fumigation by methyl bromide. This
method is routinely used with infested cut flowers imported in commercial quan-
tities. A less drastic measure is the safeguarding of potentially infested items
transiting the U.S. to another country. PPQ applies safeguards to assure that the
items pose no pest risks while moving through the U.S.
Exotic biotic agents do not respect national borders. This is evidenced by the
fact that our PPQ officers intercepted 40,689 significant pests and pathogens in
fiscal year 1983. In most instances, man or his belongings are the carrier. With
numerous opportunities for pest entry—whether it be a result of modern trans-
PLANT PROTECTION 19
portation, the pests’ own locomotion, or nature’s help (i.e. wind, water, or other
animals)— PPQ’s first line of defense cannot always exclude exotic biotic agents.
PEST RISK ANALYSIS
Pest risk analysis is the process used to determine the conditions under which
the importation of plants and plant products may be allowed, ifat all. The sequence
of events that leads to the development of an entry status determination for a
given plant or plant product is:
1. A U.S. importer requests authorization to import a specific agricultural
product. The application specifies the port in the U.S. through which the
commodity will be imported, as well as the country of origin.
2. If pest risk has not been previously analyzed on that commodity from the
country of origin, a formal analysis must be performed. The pest risk analysis
will identify those ecomonic pests that may infest that commodity from that
origin.
3. The decision to authorize or deny entry of the agricultural commodity will
be based on the results of that analysis. If the permit is issued, the conditions
under which the commodity may be imported are stated on the permit.
At times permit issuances are delayed because of misinformation in biosyste-
matic literature, by synonymy, or by taxonomic name changes. Delays may also
be experienced because of unconfirmed pest identification or errors in reported
geographic distribution or host identification. The biosystematic needs of this
program are rapid literature retrieval systems, current synonymy lists, rapid pest
and host identification, and expanded host distribution information. The lack of
information of this type in otherwise thorough literature searches may result in
avoidable permit restrictions or denial of import authorization (Fowler, 1984).
SURVEY
PPQ’s second line of defense is survey for the early detection of exotic insects,
weeds, pathogens, and other pests. The need for early detection is reflected in the
fact that U.S. crop losses caused by weeds alone were valued at $7.5 billion in
1979 (Chandler et al., 1984) with current crop yield losses averaging about 20
percent (Lackey, personal communication, 1985). Of the approximately 200 major
weeds that infest cultivated crops in the U.S., 108 are of foreign origin (Shaw,
1968). Under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, an additional 93 weeds are
listed as serious pests and are prohibited entry into the U.S. The results of survey
and detection efforts may lead to programs that involve the eradication, suppres-
sion, or containment of a significant biotic agent should it become established in
thestJ.&.
It is important that national pest surveys and identification support services be
maintained, since no quarantine program will be 100 percent effective. While
some of these quarantine and survey programs monitor established pests, many
determine the presence of exotic or newly introduced pests. In programs aimed
at exotics, the identification needs may be concerned with one specific insect, as
in the case of Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly), or as in the case of citrus,
the focus may be directed toward a wide variety of pest species. The survey and
80 JOHNSON
monitoring efforts of APHIS are involved with programs of both types. In these
programs, information on plant pests is gathered by use of diverse trapping and
monitoring techniques. Experienced taxonomists from cooperating state and fed-
eral agencies collect, identify, and record the organisms obtained from these field
operations. The information is then processed and stored on automated data
systems for use by scientists and agricultural communities worldwide. Precise
taxonomic determination is required to define any actions that will be taken as
a result of these programs (Fowler, 1984). I will address pest surveys further when
I describe the CNPPSDP.
CONTROL
Eradication is usually the ideal but often unachievable goal of pest control. The
methods used to achieve the goal are chemical and biological attacks with carefully
regulated movement of the infested material. When eradication is unsuccessful,
Suppression or containment strategies are attempted next.
Suppression is the strategy of keeping the pest population below the economic
threshold. This depends mainly on the use of chemical and biological techniques.
Pennsylvania combats the gypsy moth with aerial spraying and the release of
USDA-approved natural predators. On a smaller scale, individual farmers na-
tionwide use suppression strategies when spraying their crops.
Containment is the strategy of stopping the expansion of an infested area. It is
dependent on tight restrictions on the movement of materials out of the infested
zone. For example, in North and South Carolina, all farm machinery leaving the
witchweed quarantine area must be soil-free.
With our limited knowledge and abilities, neither suppression nor containment
are realistic long-term strategies for dealing with exotic pests. However, they do
provide much needed time for further research into more efficient chemical and
biological control methods. They also provide a “catch up” time for natural
parasites and predators to hold the pest in check.
COOPERATIVE NATIONAL PLANT PEST SURVEY
AND DETECTION PROGRAM
The preceding information very briefly summarizes some preventive measures
used by PPQ. However, because of limited funding, unavailability of pesticides,
unsuitable biological agents, and restrictive state and federal laws and regulations,
PPQ’s results often fall short of our goals. The CNPPSDP was initiated to strength-
en PPQ’s ability to detect exotic agents at an early stage. Machiavelli said, “Before
you can effectively attack the enemy, you must get to know his strengths and
weaknesses.” We are learning the strengths and weaknesses of plant pest survey
and detection by gathering information on the harmful biotic agents in this country
through the cooperative efforts of the many agencies, organizations, and individ-
uals involved in survey and detection activities. Through the CNPPSDP we are
attempting to determine precisely where these biotic agents are established, where
they are moving to, where they have been found recently, and where they can be
expected to be found in the future.
The Program was created in 1981 as a pilot program to demonstrate the fea-
sibility of collecting plant pest and pathogen information at the state and local
PLANT PROTECTION 81
level, transmitting it via telecommunications to a central computer, storing the
data, and providing a means for retrieving it on a timely basis. It is the intention
of PPQ to use this Program to help us meet several of our legally mandated
responsibilities, which include the protection of American agriculture from foreign
plant pests introduced and established in the U.S. and the facilitation of movement
of U.S. agricultural products in international commerce.
In PPQ our immediate goals are to:
1. Detect new and exotic plant pests of importance to American agriculture
early enough to initiate an effective action program;
2. Compile information on important endemic plant pests in support of export
certification; and
3. Provide timely information on the distribution and population levels of PPQ
program pests.
The Program will assist PPQ-APHIS in meeting these responsibilities by pro-
viding a means of early detection, documentation, and rapid dissemination of
information on exotic plant pests in the U.S. and on pests of concern for export
certification. Information on the latter category will enable our officers to issue
phytosanitary certificates on the basis of reliable and easily accessible data on
certain endemic plant pests. This will provide better assurance that our agricultural
products meet the entry requirements of other nations and will help improve our
balance of trade.
There is yet another aspect of the Program, that of dealing with the other
endemic plant pests and pathogens. Since the Program is cooperative, it 1s 1m-
portant that it provide benefits to all participants. The universities, especially
their extension services and research stations, have a vital need for current data
on the status of endemic pests. The Program provides a means for collecting data
on these pests as well as those of concern to PPQ. This information will be used
in monitoring endemic pest situations, such as first of season occurrence, distri-
bution, economic threshold levels, trends in the movement and dispersal of var-
ious pests, and assessing crop losses.
We feel that a number of features of the Program are keys to its success. PPQ
has negotiated a cooperative agreement with each of the 50 states. One of the
requirements of the cooperative agreement provides that the state must establish
a survey committee with representation from the state land grant university, state
department of agriculture, local PPQ representatives, and others as appropriate.
The latter may include representatives from other federal agencies, natural re-
source agencies such as forestry or conservation, state highway administrators,
chemical company representatives, grower or commodity groups, private agri-
cultural consultants, researchers, or others. We also require that the survey com-
mittee be multidisciplinary in that it represent the needs of entomology, plant
pathology, weed science, nematology, and others. It is the responsibility of the
state survey committee to determine the survey needs within that state and develop
an annual workplan to meet those needs. We believe that through the cooperative
efforts of the agencies, organizations, and individuals representing the different
disciplines we will have the greatest opportunity to obtain rapid detection of
exotic pests and pathogens and expand our data base on pests of concern for
82 JOHNSON
export certification. At the same time, we can maintain the type and quality of
data necessary for those who need this information on endemic pests.
The state survey committee has the responsibility of developing a plan of work
to address the survey needs to be carried out under the program. The various
participants carry out their portion of the plan and submit their data to the state
survey coordinator. The coordinator assures that the data is properly formatted
and contains the required pieces of information. The data is then entered into the
system. Emphasis is placed on entering only high quality data that is of value to
neighboring states or for regional or national use.
All cooperators are able to access the data base to retrieve data or reports.
Specific report formats are available for new pest records, first of season occur-
rence, trap data, pests of a single crop/host, crops/hosts for a single pest, diagnostic
reports pest distribution, and pest and crop development over time.
When the new data base management system (DBMS) that is under develop-
ment is implemented, ad hoc query will be available as a routine retrieval feature.
Another key element of the Program involves standardization of pest and path-
ogen data collection, storage, and processing techniques. The uniform storage and
processing of data, at least at the national level, are accommodated in that all
users of the system must input data according to a designated format using the
data elements required by the system.
Standardization of survey methodology is another matter. We in PPQ do not
feel we can or should dictate to the states the methods to be used for survey ofa
given pest or crop. We recognize, however, as do cooperators, the importance of
being able to relate data from one source to data on the same crop or pest from
another source. We are, therefore, encouraging the states in every way possible
to work cooperatively to identify the survey methods for a given crop and pest
situation. Through this process, we are urging adoption of the preferred method,
thus establishing a mutually acceptable form of standardization and improving
the quality of the collected data. The CNPPSDP requires that survey methods be
reported along with other pest data. The national program includes a survey
methods subfile called ‘““Pest Survey Methods Information Database” (PeSMID)
that will enhance standardization efforts by listing descriptions of the most com-
monly used survey methods and those contained in the literature. Having access
to the survey methods used by others and mutually agreeing to use preferred
survey methods will lead to expanded usability of the data.
The philosophy of this Program is to consolidate, as much as possible, survey
efforts at the local, state, and national level rather than initiate a totally new
national survey and detection program. The funding that we provide to the states
is intended to enhance rather than to replace or duplicate ongoing survey and
detection activities. It is our desire to collect data in the national system that is
of importance regionally or nationally and to enhance it where necessary. We
hope to take advantage of the several million staff hours of time devoted to survey
and detection annually in the U.S. by having surveyors and scouts recognize the
needs and interests of all cooperators and agree to collect specimens of unknown
species and submit them to taxonomists for identification. This will place an
additional burden on taxonomic resources but will certainly enhance our chances
of finding exotic species or new infestations of pests not widely distributed.
PLANT PROTECTION 83
To make maximum use of the data in the system, it is important that we develop
a DBMS that will provide for maximum use of the data. PPQ is in the process
of developing a DBMS for the Program. We have formed an Automated Data
Processing Committee to provide technical guidance in this effort, and we have
received input from all states to assure that the system meets as many of the needs
as possible. We have completed the requirements analysis phase of the devel-
opment process and are now designing the system. We expect to be on line with
the DBMS in January 1986. At that time we will relocate the system from the
Fort Collins Computer Center to a private time share facility— Planning Research
Corporation—to merge with the National Pesticide Information Retrieval System.
This will allow us to use the ADABAS software licensed for use by the NPIRS
program, allow public access to the system, simplify access to the mutual users
of both systems, and provide other intangible benefits to users.
Another key component for the national system involves the ability to use
realtime weather data in connection with the currently available plant pest in-
formation. We are investigating the possibility of using existing weather data and
developing, where necessary, the additional agricultural weather data necessary
for these efforts.
The system will contain historic data of two types. First, past years’ data will
be stored on tape and will be accessible through the data base administrator.
Second, a historic record of pest distribution to the county level will be maintained
as a separate file. It will take some time to get that file up to date, but eventually
new data will be checked against that file and it will be updated automatically.
One additional point I would like to make is that the Interamerican Institute
for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) has requested help from PPQ in designing
a plant and animal pest and disease reporting system for their 29 member countries
in North, Central, and South America. I have consulted with IICA on that matter
and expect someday to see a hemisphere-wide pest reporting system similar to
our CNPPSDP. There is also other interest worldwide in our system as expressed
by FAO in Rome and by several other countries.
There are weaknesses in the system, however, and several of them are of interest
to this group. The taxonomic aspects of the program are a problem in several
ways. First of all, the identification capabilities are very limited in many states,
at least for certain families and genera of organisms. The program will certainly
impact adversely on the taxonomists who must identify the additional specimens
that are submitted as a result of the coordinated survey. Additionally, as we request
or conduct special surveys for certain exotic species, such as a new pheromone
trapping project we have initiated, we find that the number of taxonomists able
to identify those species is very limited. Identification keys and aids are needed
along with reference specimens. Frequently these are difficult to obtain or are
unavailable.
A second problem involves coding pests and hosts. As you can appreciate,
dealing with a single discipline can sometimes be difficult. With this program we
are involved with all of the disciplines, and it is no small problem to confirm
names of pests and hosts and assign a meaningful code. We are converting our
data to the coding system used by the Environmental Protection Agency in an
84 JOHNSON
effort to standardize coding. That conversion throws an additional piece into an
already complex puzzle.
Third, it is always best to know the biota that exists at a given point in time
as a reference point from which to conduct surveys. As we know from our program,
much data exists, but it 1s scattered, hard to find, and difficult to retrieve. In
addition to helping to find new pests that are not now known to occur here, as
seems likely, a national biological survey would establish that base point from
which to conduct survey programs. We see a national biological survey as com-
plementing the CNPPSDP and vice versa.
FUTURE METHODS
The resolution of taxonomic questions mentioned earlier will require studies
that go beyond classical morphological consideration. It is apparent that tech-
niques such as electrophoresis, cuticular hydrocarbon analysis, radioimmunoas-
say, monoclonal antibodies, venom analysis, and scanning electron microscopy
must be used to solve some biosystematic questions (Fowler, 1984). The specific
methods to be used in each of these techniques need to be further refined and
described.
CONCLUSION
We feel the CNPPSDP will mature in several years to the point that it will
provide the federal government, state cooperators, farmers, private industry, and
others with the ability to obtain real-time plant pest information on a current
basis and will enable them to meet their plant pest information needs and act
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Initiate a program to coordinate taxonomic resources and activities similar
to the way survey and detection activites are being coordinated under the
CNPPSDP (pull the pieces together).
2. Identify a base level of the biota of the U.S. such as would be accomplished
through a national biological survey.
3. Encourage the cooperation of federal agencies to pool resources to find a
pest survey system and identify mutual objectives.
LITERATURE CITED
Chandler, J. M., A. S. Hamill & A. G. Thomas. 1984. Crop losses due to weeds in Canada and the
United States. Weed Science Society of America, May 1984.
Fowler, J. L. 1984. Biosystematic needs in regulatory quarantine action programs. Paper presented
at the XVII International Congress of Entomology, August 1984, Hamburg, Germany.
Johnson, R. L. 1984. The movement and dispersal of biotic agents and the role of quarantine and
regulation measures. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Movement and
Dispersal of Biotic Agents. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 1984.
Lackey, J. 1985. Personal communication. PPQ-APHIS-USDA, Hyattsville, Maryland.
PPQ-APHIS-USDA. 1983. List of intercepted plant pests, Fiscal Year 1983.
Shaw, W. 1968. The status of preventive weed control. Report of the Interagency Ad Hoc Committee
on Preventive Weed Control. USDA/USDI, June 3, 1984.
SECTION I.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
INFORMATION
vee ad aie a uf:
gical on ate jerome
pi ae Theenone
ret oF etined se ay
re visits. sai ae
fe 4 thy
: '
7 ' ‘\ ath! © eure
= lnete i an, i
“ ‘
P ‘ : any 4
= i 7 |
t ¥ i i=
hd ' . i
: r j
i » isha
.
J i
a ‘ eam ar
Prefatory Comments
Stanwyn G. Shetler
National Museum of Natural History
We are hearing about biological surveys from every angle in this symposium,
with considerable but useful overlap. I merely want to preface this afternoon’s
session with a few thoughts from my own perspective.
What is “biological survey information’? More fundamentally, what is ‘‘in-
formation’’? I will pass up the challenge to give a theoretical or philosophical
answer and offer a simple, practical definition. “Information” is raw data that
have been packaged in a meaningful way to serve some useful purpose—the end-
product of organizing, integrating, synthesizing, and presenting the data for par-
ticular uses and users. The time-honored form of packaging is publication, but,
living in a technological age as we do, we know that there now are other ways to
package and present data. “Biological survey information,” in the simplest terms,
therefore, is information derived from biological data that have been collected
through surveys.
The great repositories of biological survey data, especially collection-based data,
are the world’s herbaria and museums and the publications and other forms of
information dissemination that emanate from these institutions. In a real sense,
therefore, every herbarium or museum, large or small, is a biological survey.
Obviously, the larger the museum the more comprehensive it is as a biological
survey. A museum is a biological survey because it builds and houses biological
collections, publishes useful works, and provides information to various publics
through many forms of outreach. How well it transforms mountains of data into
useful information is the measure of its value as a biological survey.
Why, then, with all the museums in North America that have been collecting
data and disseminating information for many years—some dating to the early
days of our country—do we now feel the need to create a “‘national” biological
survey? Obviously, we have not done a very good job of transforming our data
into clearly useful products, especially of a broad, integrated type. For too long
we have operated as separate, individual and institutional fiefdoms, and our
individual products have not amounted to anything approaching a uniform taxo-
nomic and geographic coverage of the North American continent. A national
biological survey, properly established, will provide us with the integrative concept
and force to realize a truly national network with truly national objectives and,
consequently, national support.
Where do we start? What should be the initial goals? The greatest risk that we
87
88 SHETLER
face is to try to run before we can walk—to place so many initial information
demands on the system that we overload it hopelessly before we ever start. It is
clear already that we have enormous expectations. It is a risk of the political
process of gathering support. I submit.that we must maintain a sharp and relatively
narrow data focus at first until some important initial information objectives are
achieved or are well along toward being achieved. In my view, the single greatest
need at this time—and the driving force behind the national biological survey
movement—is the need for a continental fauna and a continental flora, in the
form both of hardcopy publications and databases. I will not stick my neck out
farther at this stage and try to define the data elements of faunas and floras but
simply will emphasize the great power of a modest biological database to answer
important questions when it includes a consistent data set across all taxa and
areas. The ability to permute even a handful of variables for the entire fauna or
flora could be enormously useful. Specifically, having a data set that would enable
us merely to identify and name consistently all the plants and animals of North
America would be of incalculable value, especially if this database were com-
puterized so that one could use the power of the computer to identify an organism,
starting from any data point.
Faunas and floras provide a rationale for synthesizing biological data over a
wide taxonomic scope. They represent a comprehensive, if relatively shallow,
horizontal dimension of data about many plants and animals, whereas detailed
systematic and other biological studies provide the in-depth, vertical dimension
of data that always proceeds slowly and opportunistically. In other words, faunas
and floras give synthetic geographic scope; systematic and ecological studies give
synthetic biological depth. Furthermore, the faunas and floras also provide the
reference system—the framework of names— by which to catalog all species-
related data. Producing this framework obviously is a first step in creating a
biological data bank.
Finally, there is the big question of how a national biological survey should be
organized to produce the information desired. I see several important steps. First,
I think we need a new national legislative act, an organic act analogous to the
Endangered Species Act, that defines a national biological survey and establishes
a national mandate. Without this, a national biological survey will never have
the public visibility and support it needs, and the federal agencies that might take
part lack anything on which to hang requests to participate without jeopardizing
their existing programs. Second, one or more agencies must be designated to seek
appropriations to support a national center and the cooperating network of federal,
state, and private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and for contracting
with specialists to get the job done. I strongly favor contracts over grants, because
I think a national biological survey will never reach its goals without some teeth
to specify and control the production process. Third, I see a need for a thorough
definition and planning phase during which, among other things, the status of our
knowledge about the North American fauna and flora would be assessed and a
report issued. Only after this planning phase would full-scale survey work begin.
Let me say that there is a considerable and growing interest in a national
biological survey at the Smithsonian Institution and that the National Museum
of Natural History, which I represent, has made such a survey one of its budget
PREFATORY COMMENTS 89
priorities for Fiscal Year 1987. In an interview published in Science magazine
(June 28, 1985, p. 1512-1513), Smithsonian Secretary Robert McCormick Adams
expressed interest in a national biological survey on behalf of the Institution.
As a concluding footnote, I remind you of the Flora North America (FNA)
Program of the late 1960s and early 1970s with which I was intimately associated.
In fact, for me, there is a strong sense of déja vu in our deliberations at this
symposium. For FNA, we had assembled all essential elements except for the
long-term funding, and for a brief time we thought that we had this element in
hand. Because we were so close, it was a great pity that we could not continue,
but I think that FNA has left us with an important legacy. Of the many valuable
lessons we learned, two are key in the present context: 1) that a project of the
scope and permanence of the proposed national biological survey must have /ong-
term support assured at the outset and, 2) that there is a genuine desire in the
botanical scientific community at large for a focused, unified effort with national
leadership to study the flora of the North American continent. I am certain of a
similar groundswell of support from the biological community for the broader
biological survey. FNA triggered rising expectations that have resulted in a sense
of inevitability that will not die. People want it to happen and expect it to happen
sooner or later. The move for a national biological survey can build on, and profit
from, this tide of expectation.
Finally, let me urge that the geographic limits of the survey not be fixed at the
U.S. boundaries. Plants and animals do not respect national boundaries, and we
must not create a parochial biological survey that would tie the hands of the
scientists and prevent them from pursuing their studies across American frontiers.
This is why I have been advocating that it be a “‘national’’ rather than “U.S.”
biological survey.
a Pent
tr
ate,
~Tanie ee
Vwhich v
sha Sac
ue 5 : Fe hen: feb 33 ay ‘Hatt
Siem ae bole Ga
ei ee eal Risers,
, i ’ " ah 7 7
. . suet “4 *
Tuan yd
¥y 7 > pa 7 | , P
: ‘+ 7 i , sh 1 , ’
’ 7 i
\,
t a 4 “ ’
. ? 4 19 nie
F ;
fs : ; ey
mt ihe ; i wr
Biological Survey Information:
Introduction
Wallace A. Steffan
Idaho Museum of Natural History
Abstract: The sources of currently available biological data are discussed,
e.g., publications, electronically stored data and museum collections, and the
problems associated with integrating these potential data resources in a national
biological survey. Various proposals are described for intra- and interdisci-
plinary standards for specimen or species-related documentation. Recent pub-
lications of relevance to a national biological survey are reviewed, especially
those discussing the use of computers.
Keywords: Biological Data, Data Standards, Biological Survey, Museum Col-
lections, Systematics Resources.
INTRODUCTION
Currently available biological data represent immense national resources. These
are largely underutilized because of the difficulties in identifying these information
resources, lack of uniformity in data documentation, and lack of sufficient national
or interdisciplinary appreciation of the need for a biological resources information
system. Armentano and Loucks (1979) described similar concerns in their eval-
uation of the national need for ecological and environmental data and the prob-
lems involved in integrating available data.
Attempts at standardization of data elements (there have been several) have
not been widely accepted. For example, the report of the Association of System-
atics Collections (ASC) Council on Standards of Systematics Collections (Black
et al., 1975) was either not widely distributed or was largely ignored. Possibly the
failure of this and earlier attempts to develop national standards for collection-
related information was a result of the nature of the projects being proposed which
were very ambitious but impractical at the time they were proposed because of
a lack of adequate financial and professional support. I believe (and based on
recent reports in other disciplines, others believe) that we now have the computer
and human resources to plan and implement, realistically, a national biological
survey. Education of and communication with all potential participants and with
a significant cross-section of users of a national biological survey will be an es-
sential prerequisite to the success of this endeavor.
SOURCES OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA
It would be presumptuous of me to go into any detail on the sources of biological
data available for a national survey. I will attempt to outline very briefly some
91
92 STEFFAN
sources of data and some problems inherent in their utilization in a national
biological survey.
There is no single bibliographic source of key works on the fauna and flora of
the U.S. A publication similar to those published by the British [(Kerrick et al.
(eds.), 1967; Sims and Hollis, 1980)] would certainly be a desirable initial phase
ofa U.S. biological survey and would reinforce the concept and utility ofa national
biological survey. A list of key references in systematics compiled by Knutson
and Murphy (pers. comm.) could be expanded to provide such a bibliography.
One of the reasons for the failure of previous projects involving interdisciplinary
collaboration may have been the lack of any useable product. Participants in or
users of the services of a project of this scope need to see tangible results. Indi-
viduals within a particular discipline generally are not familiar with the literature
in other disciplines. Publications such as ““The Guide to the Literature of the Life
Sciences” (Smith et al., 1980) are of some assistance in steering one in the right
direction; however, review of the literature by specialists in each discipline would
be an essential early phase in a national biological survey.
Published sources of information for biological survey data range from the
latest catalogs of particular taxa, e.g., Diptera (Stone et al., 1965), Mammal Species
of the World [Honacki et al. (eds.), 1982], to revisionary or monographic studies,
to regional checklists, to descriptions of new species. Crovello’s (1981) excellent
discussion of the literature that serves as a rare plant information resource is
certainly germane to the planning of a national biological survey. He discussed
the problems with the literature as a data source and presented a set of recom-
mended actions to enhance the value of this literature. The degree to which we
develop an understanding of the literature as an interdisciplinary resource for a
national biological survey will be a determining factor in its success.
The introduction of the personal computer has greatly accelerated the already
burgeoning variety of data being stored electronically. The recent issue of the
Federal Data Base Finder (Zarozny and Horner, 1985) identifies well over 3,000
data bases and files associated with federal activities. The Directory of Online
Databases compiled and edited by Cuadra, et al. (1982) lists an equally rich and
diverse selection of electronic data bases available for online searches through
such information services as DIALOG. Neuner et al. (1981) compiled a computer
file of names of vertebrates that is stored at the Association of Systematics Col-
lections (ASC, Lawrence, Kansas). The extent of data bases at the regional, local
and individual level and their potential value as data sources for a national
biological survey are unknown but must be staggering.
The considerable current activity in the area of computerized catalogs or check-
lists would be directly relevant to a biological survey; e.g., The Mammals of the
World and The Amphibians of the World (both published by ASC), The Checklist
of Nearctic Diptera and the proposed Biosystematic Database/Catalog of the Flies
of the World [both computerized files being compiled by the Biosystematics and
Beneficial Insect Institute (BBII) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture], The
Catalog of the Hymenoptera of North America (BBII and the Smithsonian Insti-
tution), and many other catalogs and national or regional lists in all disciplines.
The duplication of effort along with ‘‘...inconsistencies in documentation of data,
inadequate communication between data suppliers and data users, and a lack of
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 93
overall coordination of the data bases in national research and monitoring pro-
grams...”’ (Loucks, 1985) represent a staggering waste of our financial and human
resources.
Data in museum collections represent a massive information resource, but
unfortunately most of this information is unavailable. The value of coming to
grips with biological collection data was recognized years ago. Crovello (1967)
discussed the problems in the use of electronic data processing in biological col-
lections. Although technology and attitude towards computers has changed con-
siderably since then, many of his concerns are still valid, especially those relating
to problems associated with collections and curators. Barkley (1981) mentioned
several factors of importance in assimilating herbarium label data, attributing the
problems to intrinsic factors relating to individual specimen data and extrinsic
factors relating to misinterpretations of distributional data through inference.
The complexity of museum or other systematics collections data varies ac-
cording to the discipline involved. For example, collections of mammals or birds
have relatively few species and specimens, but collections of insects may contain
thousands of species and millions of specimens. These two types of collections
need to be treated differently. Data on mammal collections can be specimen
related; data on insect collections should probably be treated by lot (Humphrey
and Clausen, 1977) or on an inventory basis (Steffan, 1985). As stated in the
report, I firmly believe that systematists will remain the poor stepchildren of
science until they realize the significance of the information content in collections
as a whole, learn how to access this information, and, more importantly, how to
make it available to others in the scientific and public communities. A national
biological survey could certainly serve as a catalyst for this change in attitude and
methodology, especially information management methodology.
The biological inventories, especially the species lists mentioned in ““Data Man-
agement at Biological Field Stations’’ discussed below, could also be a major
source of data for the survey. Many of the subprograms of the International
Biological Program also produced computerized lists of biota investigated. Many
other research programs of a local, regional, or national scope have also produced
relevant data bases or files of electronic information.
The greatest potential source of new data for the biological survey is the expertise
of individuals in all major disciplines. One of the first priorities for the planners
of the survey would be to identify these human resources. The ASC has initiated
electronic files of these human resources, and several disciplines have likewise
identified these valuable resources. Human resources are on the one hand our
greatest asset and on the other the major deficiency in implementing a national
biological survey.
DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS
In their final report (Black et al., 1975), the ASC Council on Standards for
Systematics Collections recommended six basic types of minimal data standards
for all new biological collections and for all computerized specimen data banks.
These documentation standards included:
1. The institutional identifier (acronym or number).
94 STEFFAN
2. The item identifier (institutional subdivision and individual specimen cat-
alog number). |
. The taxonomic identifier (phylum, class, order, family, genus, species).
4. The locality (continent or ocean; country or oceanic region; state, province,
sea or major island group; county or other subdivision; latitude and longi-
tude; and altitude in meters).
. The time (expressed as year/month/day, e.g., 19850523).
6. The state of the specimen (part preserved, method of preservation, condition
of item).
\e*)
N
These recommendations have not been adopted universally; in fact, most po-
tential users probably are unaware of them. The recommendations may have had
more impact if they had been proposed in the detail presented in the documen-
tation standards in mammalogy (Williams et al., 1979). Sarasan and Neuner (1983)
highly recommended this compilation of documentation standards as an out-
standing example of a data element dictionary; each data field recommended for
inclusion in a mammalogy record is defined and acceptable formats described
(see Table 1). The Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) recently
developed a similar natural sciences data dictionary (Delroy et al., 1985), which
was published as a reference tool for users of their PARIS system. This data
dictionary was based on recommendations of eleven subject area task forces, with
representatives from the primary natural science disciplines, and additional fields
recommended by end users and museum consultants. An example of the definition
of each data field and associated descriptive comments is shown in Table 2.
With the exception of the CHIN documentation standards (designed primarily
for museum collection data) no generally acceptable data documentation standards
for integrated interdisciplinary data bases are available, although some of the
interdisciplinary data bases described below have adopted their own standards.
Hierarchical coding systems for taxonomic catagories have been developed for
a variety of interdisciplinary data bases; e.g., 4 Taxonomic Code for the Biota of
the Chesapeake Bay (Swartz et al., 1972), the National Oceanographic Data Center
(NODC) Taxonomic Code (1984), and the BIOSTORET Master Species List
developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Weber, 1976). The
fourth edition of the NODC Taxonomic Code is available on magnetic tape,
microfiche, and as a printed version.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS RELEVANT TO BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA
“Museum Collections and Computers”
This publication on museum collections and computers (Sarasan and Neuner,
1983) resulted from an attempt to review computerized management projects in
museums. The purpose was to provide guidelines for museum curators and ad-
ministrators considering such projects for their own institutions. The project itself
was divided into three phases: 1) a mail survey of museum computer management
projects, 2) site visits by Lenore Sarasan, the project leader, and 3) a review of
the literature applicable to problems with museum data management.
The first four chapters of this study were based on the results of the mail survey
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 95
Table 1. Example of data category in mammalogy (from Williams et al. 1979).
Category: Type of preservation.
Description: This category applies to the mode of preservation of the specimen and all of its parts.
Format: Data entered in this category consist of a standardized two-character alphabetic code (see
Valid examples).
Accepted variations: If the description of the specimen is not appropriate for any of the recognized
codes then “OT*’’ (OT* = other) may be used. If this code is used or additional information is
available for a specimen described by another code (example, skin and skull with supplemental
histological and parasite preparations) an asterisk (*) should immediately follow the code to
indicate that additional information is recorded in the category of REMARKS.
Omit conditions: This category has been declared mandatory for NIRM and is never omitted.
Contingency requirements: None.
Valid examples: The following codes represent NIRM standards for type of preservation:
Code Definition
AL Alcoholic
SS Skin and skull
SB Skin, skull, and partial skeleton
SN Skeleton only (=all skeletal parts)
SK Skull only
SO Skin only
SA Alcoholic and skull (removed)
KB Skin and body skeleton
AN Anatomical
PS Partial skeleton
CO Cranium only
HM Head mount
BM Body mount
SC Skin, skull, and alcoholic carcass
BS Body skeleton
OT* Other
Other examples: SS*
Comments: Coding of data for this category promotes standardization of preservation descriptions
and provides easier output operations that require this information, particularly output with
limited working space.
and on interviews with museum project leaders. The major conclusion reached
was that the success or failure of museum computer projects depended more upon
decisions made by individuals planning and carrying out these projects than on
the specific software or hardware used. Problems that museum administrators
have encountered in computerization relate to inadequate project management,
poor understanding of the principles and functions of documentation, and insuf-
ficient familiarity with the operation and application of computers. Four stages
are recommended to avoid problems in setting up a computer information man-
agement system.
1. Preliminary research: study similar projects, conduct bibliographic research.
2. Determine needs: identify and analyze problems inherent in existing manual
systems.
3. Systems analysis: develop a thorough understanding of structure and func-
tion of manual systems.
96 STEFFAN
Table 2. Example of data category for PARIS system (see Delroy et al. 1985).
Sequence: 2550
Field label: Specimen Nature
Field mnemonic: SPENA
Field name: Specimen Nature
Field definition: This field describes the physical nature of the specimen
Entry rules: Enter a keyword(s) to describe the specimen
Cataloguer’s rules: See also, Lot (LOT).
Data type: Alpha-numeric string
Index class: Phrase
Comments: This field is in the National Database
Examples: Study Skin
Flat Skin
Tanned Skin
Mount
Fluid
Mummy
Skull
Skeleton
Mandible
Replica
Model
Artifact
Slab
Slide
Mineral Specimen
Loose Sediment
Peel
Thin Section
Sidewall Core
Source: Mammalogy; Paleontology; Invertebrate Zoology
4. Project goals: define concisely.
Once the problems have been identified, the needs assessed, and project goals
established, the following stages need to be implemented:
1. System design: project director provides the system designer with a set of
system criteria, including a description of what the system should do, what
data should be maintained, and what outputs should be generated.
2. Develop a project plan and timetable.
3. Install the system.
4. Document the system.
The second part of this publication includes summaries for over 200 projects.
Sixty-three of these may contain information relevant to a national biological
survey. Major disciplines represented are botany, entomology, herpetology, ich-
thyology, mammalogy, and ornithology.
The third section, an annotated bibliography of computers and museums, lists
the authors’ selections of publications relevant to computerization in museums.
The index provides a cross reference to access methods to computers, type of
project, and software used.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 97
This publication provides useful, although partially outdated, information for
anyone planning to use computers in museums. The first four chapters should be
read by anyone involved in planning information management systems for mu-
seums.
“Databases in Systematics”
“Databases in Systematics” (Allkin and Bisby eds., 1984) is the result of an
international symposium on data bases in systematics, hosted in 1982 by the
Systematics Association in England. It contains 26 papers presented at the sym-
posium. As in the survey of museum computer projects (Sarasan and Neuner,
1983), it also reviews both the successes and difficulties of earlier projects. Al-
though the emphasis of the symposium was on data bases to handle descriptive
biological data, several papers dealt with general information management con-
cepts of interest to planners of a national biological survey.
Heywood (1984) in “Electronic Data Processing in Taxonomy and Systemat-
ics,’ cogently discusses the lack of understanding of and commitment to infor-
mation processing evidenced by most taxonomists. If a national biological survey
is to succeed, this is one obstacle that must be resolved.
Bisby (1984) continues and expands this line of thought in his paper, ‘‘Infor-
mation Services in Taxonomy.” He stresses the service aspect of taxonomy, quot-
ing Blackwelder (1967), “Its basic purpose is thus to systematize data for the use
of other disciplines...” Bisby’s “‘retail model’? of the Taxonomic Information
Service reflects this broad purpose of taxonomy. His “‘Diffusion Model” likewise
reflects the relationships between taxonomic data and materials and the end user.
He contends that both the taxonomic name and the descriptive biological data
are essential attributes of an integrated taxonomic information system. Two of
his major questions are: Who are the customers for the taxonomic information
service? What do they want? He concludes that the introduction of data bases
and modern communications technology provides an unprecedented opportunity
to design and experiment with taxonomic information services of many styles
and for the full range of potential customers.
Dadd and Kelly (1984), in their paper, ‘““A Concept for a Machine-readable
Taxonomic Reference File’’, describe a pilot project designed to provide the
scientific community with an on-line, interactive tool for sharing taxonomic in-
formation via a computerized collection of organism names and associated data.
This Taxonomic Reference File (TRF) will have four main components:
1. The Taxonomic Data File: includes organism names and nomenclatural data.
Each name that has appeared in the literature will have its own entry and
will be assigned a unique identifying number.
2. The Hierarchy File: contains classification schemes. It will carry multiple
schemes to accommodate differences in classification.
3. The Related Data Files: includes multiple files containing different kinds of
data, e.g. descriptive data about each organism, host/pest data, endangered
species legislation.
4. The Bibliographic File: will serve as a link between entries in the TRF and
the related bibliographic information found in existing printed and com-
puter-readable products of BIOSIS.
98 STEFFAN
The user will be able to copy desired portions of the TRF files into a separate
work space area of the system. This type of application could be used by a national
biological survey to initiate some of its files.
Heywood et al. (1984) describe the European Taxonomic, Floristic and Bio-
systematic Documentation System financed by the Research Councils of the 10
member countries. The first and current phase of this project is entry of the
systematic, geographical, ecological, and chromosomal information cited in Flora
Europaea (Tutin et al., 1964—80). Its aims are to provide a floristic, biosystematic,
and taxonomic information system for the vascular plants of Europe. The first
phase of the project has involved the analysis and review of existing relevant
documentation systems. This research will allow the construction of a suitable
file structure for the basic data in Flora Europaea and entry of those data into the
system. The second phase will consist of updating the information in the fields
covered by Flora Europaea from current and post-Flora Europaea literature, cre-
ation of new data field for information not included in this flora, and creation of
a database suitable for various kinds of on-line searches.
The data base of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN) Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC) is described
by Mackinder (1984) and deals with threatened animals and plants, protected
areas, and wildlife trade. These areas of concern form the four main units of the
CMC data base, which is set up to accommodate the two major criteria—taxo-
nomic and geographic data—used to select and sort data from this type of infor-
mation system. Both sets of data will be coded. For the U.S., the basic CMC
geographic unit would be the state.
Flesness et al. (1984) describe ““ISIS—An International Specimen Information
System” with data on more than 100,000 animals held by zoological gardens and
related facilities in twelve countries. Although not directly applicable to a national
biological survey, the data standardization methods and coding used for the taxa
are relevant. This paper is also relevant because it represents an information
management system that functions across discipline, institutional and interna-
tional lines.
Nimis et al. (1984) describe ““The Network of Databanks for the Italian Flora
and Vegetation’’. Data were standardized through the establishment of a central
data bank. Nomenclature and coding were standardized for all data elements.
Local data banks will be connected to form a networked data base.
““PRECIS—A Curatorial and Biogeographic System,” described by Russell and
Gonsalves (1984), is a data bank of herbarium specimen label information at the
National Herbarium at Pretoria that includes data on the flora of South Africa.
The data fields are either coded or freeform. Russell and Gonsalves present a
detailed historical account of the development of the system and include defini-
tions of problems encountered during the first year of development. The use of
numeric codes for specimen identification, locality, and collector has resulted in
a very high error rate and has affected the usefulness of the system. Despite this
difficulty, progress in the development of an improved information management
system has provided substantial results that could not have been attained oth-
erwise.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 99
Lucas (1984), in “Databases in Systematics: A Summing Up’’, concludes that
systematists now have the tools to resolve what were impossible dreams a decade
ago. He points to the coming of pragmatism, the appearance of microcomputers,
and the availability of user-friendly software as three of the advances responsible
for this change. All of these factors contributed to reaching the “‘critical mass” of
involved and informed individuals essential to actual implementation of these
projects.
“Data Management at Biological Field Stations”
This report, supported by the National Science Foundation and edited by Lauff
(1982), addresses the need for data management planning at biological field sta-
tions. The workshop was organized around four general categories: 1) adminis-
tration of data, 2) cataloging and documentation of data, 3) computers and soft-
ware for data management, and 4) intersite exchange of information. The report
should be consulted by individuals involved in data management planning for a
national biological survey. In terms of availability of data for a national biological
survey, the section on biological inventories, which includes species lists and
collection indices, is directly applicable to this discussion.
The report is composed of an initial summary of recommendations followed
by five chapters dealing with an overview of data management, databases, com-
puter software systems, data administration, and exchange of information between
sites. All sections are applicable to any planning process a national biological
survey would initiate.
In its overview of data management, two perspectives are discussed, a research
perspective and a perspective of secondary users, which would include the bio-
logical survey. The chapter on data bases presents discussions on data sets (en-
compassing data organization and structure, data coding, data entry, and record
keeping), biological inventories (species lists and collection indices), documen-
tation systems, data catalogs and directories, data banks, and integrated databases.
The chapter on computer software systems presents an excellent overview of
the types of software recommended for data management and includes data entry,
data dictionary, database management software, and integration of software sys-
tems.
Data administration, the topic of chapter 4, is a subject frequently neglected in
the initial planning of large data systems in biology. The following recommended
steps in establishing priorities are germane to the planning phase for a national
biological survey.
. Inventory of data bases currently planned or available.
Definition of the task and objective of each data set.
Prioritization of needs.
Determination of availability of resources.
Reassessment and reprioritization in terms of feasibility.
Selection of methods for completion of data management tasks.
Dn RWN
This chapter also recommends criteria for selection of a computer system and
discusses the need for data inventories, documentation procedures, and security.
The final chapter, on exhange of information between sites, succinctly discusses
100 STEFFAN
data exchange networks, protocol for exchange of data, mechanisms of exchange,
and, very importantly, sharing of expertise on information management.
“Guidelines for Acquisition and Management of Biological Specimens”
This publication edited by Lee et al. (1982) represents the efforts of an inter-
disciplinary group of biologists charged with producing guidelines for the acqui-
sition and management of biological specimens—especially voucher specimens.
On the basis of the 1975 report of the ASC Council on Standards for Systematics
Collections mentioned above, the participants of this Conference on Voucher
Specimen Management formulated the following set of guidelines for mandatory
categories of data that must accompany biological specimens if they are to be
useful to investigators other than the collector.
1. A unique sample designation, possibly alphanumeric
2. The location of a sample collection site
3. Time and date of sample collection—as well as other biologically significant
dates such as date of preservation, propagation, isolation, etc.
4. Name of collector—and other donor identification including station or field
numbers
. Identity to species level
. Method of collection and preparation
. Use of standard coding system
. Distinct identifier for each repository
con NN
These guidelines are useful in a general way, but allow too much flexibility to
be useful for a biological survey data base.
“Rare Plant Conservation: Geographical Data Organization”
This publication edited by Morse and Henifin (1981) was the result of a sym-
posium sponsored by the U.S. National Park Service on synthesis of plant dis-
tribution information. It differs significantly from most symposium proceedings
in that the publication reflects not only the discussions of the symposium, but
also develops ideas presented at this meeting. The resulting 23 papers and nine
appendices provide an excellent argument for cooperative projects such as a
national biological survey.
Morse and Lawyer (1981) in their introduction state, ‘““The lack of coordination
and effective communication in the plant conservation field has resulted in much
duplication of effort; some species and some geographical areas have been studied
and reviewed repeatedly, and others not yet at all. Clearly the time has come to
consider from many viewpoints the topic of Rare Plant Conservation: Geograph-
ical Data Organization, with particular emphasis on prospects for project coor-
dination.” The same ideas are applicable to a survey of our national biological
resources.
Other sections of this book deal with information needs and priorities, infor-
mation sources, descriptions of representative projects, and appendices treating
topics related to rare plant conservation. Although the book covers only one
discipline, botany, the ideas expressed and conclusions reached are certainly ger-
mane to any discussions of a national biological survey.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 101
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Clearly some centralized mechanism needs to be established to begin to provide
syntheses of information on the biological resources of the U.S. A national bio-
logical survey could serve such a vital function. Whichever options eventually
are exercised (e.g., expansion of existing organizations or agencies or creation of
a new organization), major problems involving synthesis of biological data from
a variety of different sources and media need to be resolved. The Biological Survey
of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) has gained momentum, and their publications
(Danks, ed. 1982-) and expertise in development and implementation ofa national
survey of Canada should be a valuable asset in any planned national biological
survey of the U.S.
The Canadian Heritage Information Network was developed after more than
a decade of effort of numerous individuals in both humanities and natural sciences.
The program’s key mandates included development in information-sharing pro-
cedures and the creation of a national inventory of collections. Rottenberg (1984)
presented an excellent overview of this program and is another valuable resource.
Several intitial steps could include:
1. Publication of a handbook to key references to the flora and fauna of the
U.S. in a format similar to the “Bibliography of Key Works for the Iden-
tification of the British Flora and Fauna’ (Kerrich et al. 1967). Smith et al.
(1980) provide an excellent starting point for such a comprehensive publi-
cation.
2. Publication of information on human resources in each discipline following
a format similar to that used in “The International Register of Specialists
and Current Research in Plant Systematics” (Kiger et al. 1981).
3. Development of a data dictionary for the biological sciences in formats
similar to those used by Williams et al. (1979) and Delroy et al. (1985).
Foote (1977) provided a thesaurus of terms in entomology that would be
one of the many sources to be used for an interdisciplinary data dictionary.
Development of a data dictionary would involve a series of workshops-first
at the disciplinary level and later at a national interdisciplinary level, at
which some users and information management and documentation spe-
cialists would be involved.
LITERATURE CITED
Allkin, R. & F. A. Bisby (eds.). 1984. Databases in systematics. The Systematics Association Spec.
Publ. No. 20. Academic Press, London. 329 p.
Armentano, T. V. & O. L. Loucks. 1979. Ecological and environmental data as under-utilized na-
tional resources: Results of the TIE/ACCESS Program. U.S. Department of Energy Contract No.
EY-76-S-05-521. The Institute of Ecology (TIE), Indianapolis, Indiana.
Barkley, T. M. 1981. Use and abuse of specimen labels in distribution mapping. Jn: Morse, L. E.
and M. S. Henifin (eds.). Rare plant conservation: Geographical data organization.
Bisby, F. A. 1984. Information services in taxonomy. Jn: Allkin, R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases
in systematics.
Black, C. C. (ed.). 1975. Report of the ASC Council on Standards for Systematics Collections. ASC
Newsletter 3(3): insert, 4 p.
Blackwelder, R. E. 1967. Taxonomy: a text and reference book. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York. 698 p.
102 STEFFAN
Crovello, T. H. 1967. Problems in the use of electronic data processing in biological collection.
Taxon 16: 483-491.
Crovello, T. H. 1981. The literature as a rare plant information resource. Jn: Morse, L. E. and M.
S. Henifin (eds.) Rare plant conservation: Geographical data organization.
Cuadra, R. N., D. M. Abels & J. Wanger. 1982. Directory of online databases. Vol. 4(1): 1-293.
Dadd M. N. & M. C. Kelly. 1984. A concept of a machine-readable taxonomic reference file. Jn:
Allkin, R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Delroy, S. H., M. Cox, I. G. Sutherland & R. A. Bellamy. 1985. Natural sciences data dictionary of
the Canadian Heritage Information Network. Documentation Research Publ. No. 2. 195 p.
Flesness, N. R., P. G. Garnatz & U.S. Seal. 1984. ISIS—An international specimen information
system. Jn: Allkin, R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Foote, R. H. 1977. Thesaurus of entomology. Entomological Society of America. College Park,
Maryland. 188 p.
Heywood, V. H. 1984. Electronic data processing in taxonomy and systematics. Jn: Allkin, R. and
F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Heywood, V. H., D. M. Moore, L. N. Derrick, K. A. Mitchell & J. van Scheepen. 1984. The European
Taxonomic, Floristic and Biosystematic Documentation System—An Introduction. Jn: Allkin,
R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Honacki, J. H., K. E. Kinman & J. W. Koeppl (eds.). 1982. Mammal species of the world. Allen
Press, Inc. and Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Humphrey, P. S. & A. C. Clausen. 1977. Automated cataloging for museum collections. Association
of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 79 p.
Kerrich, G. J., R. D. Meikle & N. Tebble (eds.). 1967. Bibliography of key works for the identification
of the British fauna and flora. 3rd ed. Systematics Assoc. Publ. No. 1.
Kiger, R. W., T. C. Jacobsen & R. M. Lilly (eds.). 1981. International register of specialists and
current research in plant systematics. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie-
Mellon University.
Lauff, G. H. 1982. Data management at biological field stations. Report of a workshop held at the
W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University. National Science Foundation, Wash-
ington, DC. 46 p.
Lee, W. L., B. M. Bell, & J. F. Sutton (eds.). 1982. Guidelines for acquisition and management of
biological specimens. Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 42 p.
Loucks, O. L. 1986. Biological survey data bases: characteristics, structure, and management. Jn:
Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson (eds). Foundations for a National Biological Survey, Association of
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Lucas, G. L. 1984. Databases in systematics: a summing up. Jn: Allkin, R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.)
Databases in systematics.
Mackinder, D.C. 1984. The database of the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. Jn: Allkin, R.
and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Morse, L. E. & J. I. Lawyer. 1981. Introduction. Jn: Morse, L. E. and M. S. Henifin (eds.) Rare
plant conservation: geographical data organization.
Morse, L. E. & M. S. Henifin(eds.). 1981. Rare Plant Conservation: Geographical Data Organiza-
tion. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 377 p.
National Oceanographic Data Center. 1984. NODC Taxonomic Code. 4th edition. Key to Ocean-
ographic Records Documentation Nr. 15. 2 vols., 738 p.
Neuner, A. M., T. J. Berger, D. E. Seibel, G. McGrath & D. Pakaluk. 1984. Checklist of vertebrate
names of the United States, the U.S. Territories and Canada. Computer File, Association of
Systematics Collection, Lawrence, Kansas.
Nimis, P. L., E. Feoli, & S. Pignatti. 1984. The network of databanks for the Italian flora and
vegetation. Jn: Allkin, R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Russell, G., E. Gibbs & P. Gonsalves. 1984. PRECIS—a curatorial and biogeographic system. Jn:
Allkin, R. and F. A. Bisby (eds.) Databases in systematics.
Sarasan, L. & M. Neuner. 1983. Museum collections and computers. Association of Systematics
Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 292 p.
Sims, R. W. & D. Hollis (eds.). 1980. Animal identification: a reference guide. British Museum
(Natural History), London. 198 p.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA _ 103
Smith, R. C., W. M. Reid & A. E. Luchsinger. 1980. Smith’s guide to the literature of the life
sciences. 9th Ed. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis. 223 p.
Steffan, W. A. 1985. Inventory level computerization of systematics collections: an example for the
Pacific. In: Sohmer, S. H. (ed.) Forum on systematics resources in the Pacific. Special Publications,
Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Stone, A., C. W. Sabrosky, W. W. Wirth, R. H. Foote, & J. R. Coulson (eds.). 1965. A catalog of
the Diptera of America north of Mexico. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Agric. Handbook
276. 1696 p.
Tutin, T. G., V. H. Heywood, N. A. Burges, D. M. Moore, D. H. Valentine, S. M. Walters & D. A.
Webb (eds.). 1964-1980. Flora Europaea. 5 vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Williams, S. L., M. J. Smolen & A. A. Brigida. 1979. Documentation standards for automatic data
processing in mammalogy. The Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. 48 p.
Zarozny, S. & M. Horner. 1984. The federal data base finder. Information USA, Inc., Potomac,
Maryland. 409 p.
Eqvigtienay OS eee
Pe ci Ae Shs
emt a wh y hit ig i a i | PIE OT | % ; 4 ei
; sia! nea &
: A neiak bathe
ie uit (vi vanghatisrt hey
v : Regs 3
eas lines 2 be
Lee , bik gh Je
AR: ets ie
Pay = ot / i ‘
dae yp . i ak) 1, i
Nand aly hilt wi
PP Neal 38) rl BR Hak
ea a vee
‘ 14 . is ead Abend: ‘
Ns “Sitio Wi aD: Bata
as ee aa SA
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
DATA BASES:
CHARACTERISTICS,
STRUCTURE,
AND MANAGEMENT
Orie L. Loucks
Holcomb Research Institute
Butler University
Abstract: Implicit in a national biological survey are large data files covering
both the biota and the environment that sustains them. Also implicit is the
need to have these data widely accessible to users for both basic research and
for planning or policy assessments. Widespread use of biological data bases
requires broad understanding of, and support for, high standards of data quality
control, in the field, in the laboratory, in annotations and in computer sum-
marization. This paper reviews 1) the options available to meet the immediate
objective of more sophisticated data access and management of existing data
through a national biological survey and 2) longer term goals of more complete
data bases and more comprehensive syntheses of the compiled information.
Keywords: Data Bases, Data Management, Quality Assurance, User Groups,
Syntheses.
INTRODUCTION
The characteristics and structure of the data bases comprising a national bio-
logical survey involve several loosely connected concerns: first, obviously, the
biota and their environments; second, the skills and interests of those who study
this biota; and finally, the practical concerns of a user community, ranging from
students to researchers to developers to government and industry leaders. Two
other considerations include where we are now in terms of the information base
and the access of users to it and where we should be as a presumably sophisticated
industrial nation building on and sustaining its renewable resource base.
Accordingly, my goals in this paper are 1) to review the characteristics of at
least a major portion of the relevant data base as it exists now, 2) review problems
of its management and user access, and 3) suggest approaches to a more com-
105
106 LOUCKS
prehensive data management capable of meeting diverse user needs (including
research) while also protecting proprietary interests in existing data.
PROBLEMS WITH THE STRUCTURE OF EXISTING DATA BASES
The presentations at this conference are replete with evidence as to the diversity
of existing data bases covering museum and herbarium collections, plant and
animal populations, life history data, and habitat characteristics. This situation
is not at all new, and several studies have documented problems of access to, and
reliability of, major biological and environmental data bases.
One of these studies was the ACCESS Project, supported in the late 1970s by
the Department of Energy and performed by The Institute of Ecology (TIE) (Ar-
mentano and Loucks, 1979). The goal of ACCESS was to evaluate the national
need for ecological and environmental data and determine the extent to which
existing data documentation and archiving were meeting that need. The principal
steps focused on then current data documentations and research in government,
private, and academic sectors of the natural science community, particularly as
they related to the accessibility of the data to secondary users.
The published results of the study, entitled “Ecological and Environmental
Data as Under-Utilized National Resources,”’ indicated that the potential con-
tributions that existing biological data could make were not being achieved because
of inconsistencies in data documentation, inadequate communication between
data suppliers and data users, and a lack of overall coordination of the data bases
in national research and monitoring programs. A nationally coordinated network
was proposed, focusing on “regional data centers’’ and tied together through a
hierarchy of data bases (national, state, and local) with a broad spectrum of
potential users. A national biological survey could readily incorporate these hi-
erarchically linked kinds of data (national, state and local) and thereby contribute
to meeting important needs.
In evaluating the status of the existing data resources, the ACCESS project
found that there are both gaps and duplications in the data bases throughout
federal and state government, regional (inter- and intra-state) commissions, local
agencies, academia, and industry. The reliability and associated documentation
of these data bases varies widely. In some, such as certain of the state agency and
industry air monitoring programs, there is a complete quality assurance record
and careful control of data collection, analysis, and storage. For other data bases
there is no written documentation and no systematic quality assurance program.
Neither an awareness of these data as national resources nor the need for their
accessiblity by other users has been recognized as an important priority.
In considering the problems of making the user community aware of and en-
couraging them to use existing data, the TIE study found that scientists, policy
makers, and environmental assessment personnel sought data and information
of many kinds, but often to no avail. In the single state (Texas) where a compre-
hensive data clearinghouse had been operating, existing data were collated from
many sources (under state law) to meet needs from a broad spectrum of users.
There already existed an extensive need for unsummarized, numerical data among
industrial consultants, researchers, and government personnel, but in the absence
of a service providing access to these data, the value of the data for policy-making
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA BASES 107
and research went unrecognized. The TIE report found that many users wanted
a mixture of data services, such as raw data plus reports of related work or
bibliographic listings. Others wanted consultation with source personnel along
with certain data. Both groups benefited in Texas from having a simple, effective
mechanism for satisfying a wide range of data needs from a single source. A
national biological survey or a network functioning hierarchically as a single
facility could provide a smiliar service to the nation as a whole.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA
The most comprehensive survey of the broad spectrum of biological survey
data bases is that edited by Lauff (1982) for the National Science Foundation and
the Association of Biological Field Stations. The report notes the diversity of data
collected at biological field stations, including maps, specimens, charts, field notes,
microfiche, and computerized textual as well as numeric information. Some data,
such as climate records, are of utility to a great number of researchers, while others
may pertain only to processes or species at one field station. They note that the
data include both long-term and short-term records, the former requiring long-
term management to be useful. The data bases discussed in the Lauff report include
data sets compiled by individual researchers for their own use as well as data
developed by field stations for general use. They include not only data in the usual
sense, but data bases of information about data, such as directories and catalogs
of data (such as museum collections), and their associated documentation.
The Lauff report starts by noting that a data set carefully managed for its primary
purpose will also be most useful to others. Although the originator of a data set
will place priority on immediate data analysis needs, this use is not necessarily
at odds with long-term data management and utilization goals. The documentation
and management needed to make data available to secondary users are simply
an extension of what researchers should do for their own purposes.
However, certain general principles can be applied to data characterization and
management, no matter how complex the data set: Defining the types of entities
about which there are data, and then developing the data about each type of entity.
While many data sets are gathered by individual researchers or research teams
for their own use, other data sets should exist as general resources at all museums,
field stations, or study sites. Some of these data bases can be thought of as
“biological inventories” that describe both species and ecological characteristics
of the locale. Such data bases should be available as part of a national biological
survey.
Two typical types of biological inventory—species lists and indexes to biological
collections —illustrate some special data management needs, according to the Lauff
report (1982). The species data often takes the form of printed lists arranged in
a taxonomic or spatial sequence. Some lists are compiled by a researcher or
instructor directly from observations; others are compiled indirectly from anec-
dotal data, published reports, or museum collections. In many respects, species
lists can be managed just like any other data sets, but in cases where a species list
is derived, in whole or in part, from other data, there are some additional data
management issues. Such a list is, in effect, a summary of other data. A summary
of data, by definition, does not include all the data from which it is derived. For
108 LOUCKS
this reason, it is best to maintain documentation on the link between summary
species lists and their source data. Since biological communities are dynamic,
species lists should be dynamic and reflect changes in distribution or nomencla-
ture. Data bases are more easily updated when the species lists and the source
material are computerized.
The second example, computerized indexes, increases the utility of biological
collections by making it easier to locate specimens quickly and by making some
of the data inherent in the collection available for efficient analysis. An index '
usually contains, for each specimen, data such as the taxonomic name, locality
from which the specimen was obtained, name of collector, date collected, and
other information describing characteristics of the specimen. Minimal data cat-
egories are reviewed in ““Guidelines for Acquisition and Management of Biological
Specimens” (Lee et al., 1982).
DOCUMENTATION SYSTEMS AS A PART OF DATA MANAGEMENT
The Lauff report also notes that documenting data is essentially an elaboration
of existing practices (survey and measurement). In addition to documenting the
scientific aspects of research, it is also necessary to document technical aspects of
data handling, structure, and content. It is necessary that both scientific and
technical documentation be available to secondary users, and it is desirable that
they be handled in an integrated fashion. Primary users (contributors) and sec-
ondary users can deal more efficiently with data when its documentation follows
a uniform format. Typically, there might be many data sets at a site, each data
set consisting of one or more files (or tables). Each data set and each data file
should be documented. In addition, each file will have several constituent vari-
ables, and some of these variables might be contained in more than one file. The
variables also need to be documented. Thus, one should focus on three entities:
data sets, data files, and variables. Tables 1, 2, and 3 (from Lauff, 1982) list the
categories of documentation needed for data sets, data files, and variables, re-
spectively.
The degree to which documentation is computerized will vary from site to site.
Much of the documentation of variables, and some documentation of files, is
handled more or less automatically by recent software. However, all software used
to prepare computerized data bases should be fully documented.
No matter how sophisticated the technical aids, effective documentation for
secondary users must be facilitated by appropriate administrative policies and
procedures. Researchers, on their own initiative, may maintain documentation
about data structure for their own use, given efficient tools for doing so, but
documentation of the origin of their data tends to be left incomplete. The Lauff
report recommends that a data management group review all documentation of
data supplied by researchers for incorporation into a data bank to ensure that
minimal standards have been met.
DATA BANKS AS PART OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
DATA MANAGEMENT
Finally, the Lauff report (1982) and other documents (NAS, 1985) suggest that
a data bank can be thought of as a data base of data bases. It provides researchers
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA BASES 109
Table 1. Categories of documentation for data sets.
1. Data set name A name or code that uniquely identifies the data set.
2. Data set title A title that describes the subject matter.
3. Data set files A list of the data files that constitute the data set.
4. Research location Information that identifies the site of the research or other project that
generated the data.
5. Investigator Names of the person(s) responsible for the research or other project that
generated the data.
6. Other researchers Names of other persons responsible for various phases of data collection or
analysis, especially those who could conceivably be consulted regarding
use of the data.
7. Contact person Name of the person to contact for permission to use the data, and for help
in locating and obtaining it.
8. Project Description of the overall project of which this data set is a part (to place
it in the context of other research and to describe its purpose).
9. Source of funding
10. Methods Description of methods used to collect and analyze the data, including the
experimental design, field and laboratory methods, and computational
algorithms (via reference to specialized software where necessary). (This
category is analogous to the methods and materials section of published
papers. It could easily be subdivided into other categories. The experi-
mental design, especially, could be put in a separate category, since it can
help describe the rationale of the data set.)
11. Storage location Storage location and medium of the data set as a whole, e.g., magnetic tape,
and medium disk files, punched cards, etc.
12. Data collection A description of the data collection period and periodicity, and major tem-
time period poral gaps or anomalies in the data set pattern.
13. Voucher material Site (institution, collection) where voucher material has been deposited.
14. Processing and A description of data verification and error checking procedures, and of any
revision history revisions since publication of the data.
15. Usage history References to published and unpublished reports or analyses of the data that
could be of interest to a secondary user.
with a single source for all data pertaining to a site and can ensure a degree of
quality and consistency in the management of data and documentation. Most of
the work needed to develop and maintain a data bank pertains to the ways in
which data are entered into it. Although the development of storage structures
and search tools (the “‘output”’ system) for use by secondary users is an important
task, it is even more important to develop methods for obtaining cooperation and
data from contributing researchers (the “‘input’’ system). In the absence of au-
tomated techniques for dealing with the problem of data updating and documen-
tation, the Lauff report recommends the establishment of a regular system of
review. Each data set and its documentation should be scheduled for periodic
review by the contributing researcher, who can be requested to note any updates
or corrections that should be applied to the data or documentation. The period
between reviews can be short when the data set is relatively active and relatively
long (on the order of years) thereafter.
Control of data quality is another concern. Quality control and quality assurance
mean different things to different people. Aspects of quality control in biological
surveys range from the scientific to the technical. They include the quality of
research (e.g., quality of hypotheses and experimental design), quality of mea-
110
LOUCKS
Table 2. Categories of documentation for data files.
i.
File name
2. Constituent variables
. Key variables
. Subject
. Storage location
. Physical size
. File creation methods
. Update history
. Summary statistics
A name or code that uniquely identifies the file.
A list of the variables contained in the file. This list (and the information
about each variable, i.e., the categories listed in Table 3) is the most
important information about the file.
A list of the hierarchy of variables that determine the sorted sequence of
the data, or a list of the variables that constitute the file’s “key.”
An explicit description of the subject matter of the file. It should make
clear what type of entity is described by the records.
A description of the location of the file (in terms of a computer system’s
file naming system, where appropriate).
The number of records and total number of characters, or other such
descriptors.
A description or list of procedures or algorithms used to create the file,
and the files from which the file was derived (if applicable).
A record of updates to the file (where those records might help to reconcile
differences with previous versions of the data).
A brief set of summary statistics (means, sums, minima, maxima, etc.)
for each variable. (These can be used to verify that the data file one is
using is indeed the correct version, and to verify the accuracy of data
transfers.)
Table 3. Categories of documentation for data variables.
L.
7}
3.
. Precision of
Variable name
Definition
Units of measurement
measurement
. Range or list of
values
. Data type
. Position and/or
format
. Missing data codes
. Computational method
The name of the variable (which should be unique within the data set),
and any synonyms which a user might encounter.
A definition of the variable in ecological terms.
(Statements about precision should not only give error bounds, but explain
what they refer to. The user should know whether the variance given
is that of determinations by an instrument, or among replicate samples
at a single location, or among locations within a given area, etc.)
The minimum and maximum values, or for categorical variables, a list
of the possible values (or a reference to a file that lists them and any
code definitions).
A description of the variable, in terms like “integer,” ““date,” “‘4-byte
real,’ or whatever others are used by a data base management system
(DBMS) or statistical package. (This information is needed when deal-
ing with data stored in the special formats of a DBMS or statistical
package.)
Any information that will be needed by a program in order to read data
from (for example) an ASCII file. (This information is typically needed
in a non-DBMS environment and is almost always needed for data
transfer between sites.)
A list of codes that indicate missing data. If there are several types of
missing data codes, they should be distinguished.
Algorithms that were used to derive this variable from others (if appli-
cable).
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA BASES ea
surement (e.g., adequacy of instrumentation and methods, replication, confidence
limits), and quality of recording and transcription of data (e.g., from field forms
to computer). In a sense, these terms simply extend existing understandings that
the quality of research and of measurements can be controlled in large part through
documentation of methods and the data obtained. If all data are thoroughly
documented as to persons responsible, methods, etc., a later user can decide
whether a particular data set is of sufficient quality for a particular purpose.
Quality control in the area of data recording and transcription is particularly
troublesome. Data entry is one level that is prone to error. Much time is wasted
when errors are found in data at advanced stages of analysis, requiring correction
and reanalysis of entire studies. Even worse from a scientific standpoint, poor
quality control may leave errors undetected until years later. Whatever data ver-
ification procedures are followed, the documentation should make them clear to
the user.
DATA BASE MANAGEMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA
The report by Lauff (1982) notes that data base management systems (DBMSs)
are the most general and basic of data handling software. Different people will
have different ideas of what they are because the meaning of “‘data base manage-
ment system”’ often depends on whether it is used in the context of mainframe
computers or microcomputers. Persons who work with business data bases on
large computers would not consider the DBMSs available for microcomputers to
be worthy of the name, while for a person operating in a microcomputer envi-
ronment, the DBMSs used on large computers are unnecessarily complex and
more of a hindrance than a help to accomplishing useful work. A DBMS, if
comprehensive enough, can tie all other software and data together by serving as
a general purpose storage and retrieval system for all types of data. A common
data structure can make possible a consistent treatment for all data. Tools for
error checking, documentation, and security are easy to develop and to use if the
data are in a common form. A DBMS can also include a language for retrieving
and manipulating data. These two features, a generic structure for data and a set
of generic operations to manipulate data, can free the researcher from many of
the details involved in performing the same functions in general purpose pro-
gramming languages (Lauff, 1982).
Data can, of course, be managed without the software that goes under the name
“data base management system.” Sometimes other software products, alone or
in combination, provide some of the functions that we might otherwise obtain
from a DBMS. We consider here three important features from the Lauff report:
Generic data structure—A uniform data storage structure can do much to
integrate data management. It is far too confusing and wasteful to have to store
data in one way for one analysis and in another way for others. A good DBMS
will make it possible to store all data in a uniform way, yet retrieve them easily
in the form required by any other software.
Data independence—A DBMS can make the data storage structures inde-
pendent from the programs that use the data. This makes it possible to change
a data base without disrupting programs that use it. A good DBMS, however,
LEZ LOUCKS
will make many types of changes possible without necessitating changes in the
programs that read or write the data.
Security control— A DBMS can control access to data by allowing the manager
of a data base to make specified portions of it available to certain persons, for
specific purposes (e.g., updating, reading).
AN “ECOSYSTEMS DATA HANDBOOK’
AS A PRODUCT OF A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
As modern science has grown, specialties within it have matured into separate
disciplines. Typically, communication within each new discipline becomes more
and more circumscribed; at the same time, various activites within the discipline
differentiate and become new sub-disciplines. Ecosystem science as a discipline
has coalesced from the several disparate disciplines (including species distribution
and community data) that contributed to its foundation. Thus, the data bases
required for ecosystem analysis should be recognized as part of a national bio-
logical survey. Several papers in this volume have cited the need for some “‘over-
arching synthesis’’ from the survey. One such synthesis would be application of
the data to improving ecosystem management.
Although the literature of ecosystem science has been accumulating for almost
a century, it was not until the onset of the International Biological Program (IBP)
that much systems-oriented ecological material was gathered. The advent of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environ-
mental Quality (CEQ), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led
first to recognition of the inherent interdependencies of man and natural-resource
systems, secondly to new data about ecosystems, and thirdly to a pressing need
to apply those data. |
Accordingly, late in 1974, CEQ convened a meeting at the Smithsonian Insti-
tution in Washington, D.C., where prospective users of ecosystem data examined
the difficulties of obtaining and applying biological and ecosystems data to societal
problems. The participants concluded that the ready availability of information
about ecosystems in the form of a handbook would facilitate greatly the prepa-
ration of environmental assessments and the solution of resource-use problems
(TIE, 1979).
Two general assessments were made of the availability of data. One involved
an inventory of relatively automated information sources as compiled by per-
sonnel at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Information was also obtained
from The Encyclopedia of Information Systems and Services (Kruzas and Schnitz-
er, 1971). Finally, information was used from preliminary results of a survey of
computerized data bases in the Midwest conducted by staff of TIE’s ACCESS
Project. The survey resulted in identification of some 208 sources of data or
information about data, as of January 1977. Only seven of the sources listed an
estimate of the number of observations contained in their data bases; these av-
eraged 9,740,000 observations each. Some 21 other data bases were identified
from the survey.
Numerous problems concerning the format and scope of an ecosystems hand-
book emerged, however. One problem centered on the comprehensiveness of the
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA BASES 113
handbook’s contents and difficulties involved in obtaining a consensus as to what
should be included. Also of great importance was the need to document the data
base so that the handbook contents would meet a broad range of user needs.
The following are the criteria agreed upon to limit the scope of an ecosystems
handbook (TIE, 1979):
* The handbook should not significantly overlap with existing physical and
biological handbooks.
*x The geographical area for which data are needed is North America (north of
Mexico), associated island ecosystems (including Hawaii and Puerto Rico),
and inshore marine ecosystems.
x Handbook data should relate to the biotic characteristics and processes of
natural resource ecosystems, excluding, however, both human ecology (except
perturbations caused by human activites) and intensive production cultures
(such as agriculture and aquaculture), except as these activites might act as
stressors on natural ecosystems.
*x Introductory (or appendix) material should provide guidelines for users, sources
of information, summaries of ecosystem concepts and principles, literature
aids, and a glossary.
Information concerning the content of the handbook was obtained from two
surveys, a user survey and a content survey (to 454 respondents). From the user
survey, certain types of topical needs were identified (see Table 4). Since the study
group recognized that all the necessary background information about the data
could not be conveyed in the individual chapters, there would be a need for a
narrative introductory chapter. The introduction itself would describe the scope
of the data to be summarized. The organization of the information in the handbook
also would be discussed briefly to explain how the biomes and ecosystems had
been identified.
The introductory section also could provide guidelines for users of the data
tables. These guidelines would cover:
* Comparability of Methods and Data. The users of the handbook would be
made explicitly aware that in recent years the methodology of obtaining
ecological information has changed in some areas (e.g., standing-crop and
productivity). Such information has been obtained by clipping quadrats as
well as by determining the evolution of CO,. This example illustrates why
users must be fully informed about how the data are collected.
* Specific Uses and Scope of Data. The handbook would be useful on four
principal levels:
+ Policy analysis and formulation related to environmental impact, larger
scale spatial/temporal planning, and resource use/management models
+ Decision-making on policy options, by various government and private
units
+ Ecosystems resource management
+ Research and instruction
* Uses in Policy Analysis and Decision-making. Because of the importance of
114 LOUCKS
Table 4. Proposed table of contents for the ecosystems data handbook.
Title of volume (unit)
1.0 Introduction and
ecosystem principles
2.0 Grassland biome
3.0 Desert biome
4.0 Broad-schlerophyll biome
5.0 Pinyon-Juniper biome
6.0 Tundra biome
7.0 Boreal-taiga biome
Chapter subheadings*
Scope of the handbook
Organization of handbook criteria
Criteria for biome and ecosystem divisions
Table of biomes and inclusive ecosystems
Ecosystem description and data classes
Map of biomes
Sources of information used for data
Guidelines for users
Methods and data comparability
Specific data uses
Scope
Uses in policy analysis and decision making
Dangers of misapplication
Ecosystem components, attributes, and inter-relationships
Ecosystem cybernetics
Principles of ecosystem energetics
Biogeochemical flows and cycles
Ecosystem responses and recovery from disturbances
Aquatic ecosystem commonalities across biomes
Terrestrial ecosystem commonalities across biomes
Land-water interactions
Shortgrass ecosystem
Tallgrass ecosystem
Mixedgrass ecosystem
Palouse prairie ecosystem
Desert grassland ecosystem
Annual grassland ecosystem
Mountain grassland ecosystem
Everglade grassland ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Great Basin desert ecosystem
Mojave desert ecosystem
Chihuahuan desert ecosystem
Sonoran desert ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Oak Woodlands ecosystem
Chaparral ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Pinyon-Juniper ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Tall shrub ecosystem
Low shrub ecosystem
Cottongrass ecosystem
Graminoid ecosystem
Polar desert ecosystem
Alpine desert ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Shrubland ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystem
Table 4. Continued.
Title of volume (unit)
8.0 Temperate coniferous forest
biome
9.0 Temperate deciduous forest
biome
10.0 Island biome
11.0 Subtropical biome
12.0 Coastal biome
13.0 Ecological literature
and organizations
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA BASES 115
Chapter subheadings*
Sierra/Cascade Montane ecosystem
Rocky Mountain Montane ecosystem
Appalachian Montane ecosystem
Northern Pacific Coast ecosystem
Oak-Chestnut Forest ecosystem
Oak-Hickory Forest ecosystem
Mixed Mesophytic (Forest) ecosystem
Western Mesophytic Forest ecosystem
Southeast Evergreen Forest ecosystem
Beech-Maple Forest ecosystem
Maple-Basswood Forest ecosystem
Hemlock-White Pine-Northern Hardwoods Forest ecosys-
tem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Island forest ecosystem
Island Montane ecosystem
Island Grassland/March ecosystem
Coral reef ecosystem
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Terrestrial ecosystems unspecified
Appropriate aquatic ecosystems
Near-shore marine ecosystem
Estuarine ecosystem
Seagrass and algal ecosystem
Marsh ecosystem
Mangrove ecosystem
Dune ecosystem
Barrier Island ecosystems
Ecological literature aids
Ecological review journals
Research reference services
Related handbooks
Journals
Organizations primarily concerned with
Ecology
Professional and educational societies
Research organizations
Conservation and protection organizations
* A glossary, constants, coefficients, conversions, literature citations, and an index will be incorporated
in each volume focusing on data for one or more biomes.
biological data in societal policy making and decision-making processes, and
because of the relative underdevelopment of this interface, the narrative
should include a brief but illustrative discussion of:
+ The relationships among biological data, other information, and various
factors used in policy analyses
+ The process of transforming and synthesizing these data for policy and
decision-making purposes
116 LOUCKS
*x Dangers of Misapplication. The guidelines would also address the danger of
misuse of the handbook data, as in situations where a data point may be
valid but should not be used in interpretation and/or application for certain
concerns. Included would be the danger of releasing pinpoint sites for en-
dangered or threatened organisms.
Within each of the proposed biome volumes, a series of ecosystems will be
listed for complete summarization of data. For each type of ecosystem, infor-
mation would be provided for purposes of comparison. The overall outline of the
content of the handbook (Table 4) should be regarded as tentative. Because the
availability of data varies widely among the proposed biome volumes, the cor-
respondence between “‘biome”’ and published “‘volumes”’ may need to be reas-
sessed at a later date. At the same time, however, the outline recognizes that
additional data are becoming available. Future updates could lead to much more
complete treatments.
Also to be incorporated into the handbook are data needed for the development
of ecological models to aid in understanding ecosystems. Literature aids, referrals
to state-of-the-art reviews, and a glossary of terms are included in the final table
of contents, in response to a high level of interest expressed by potential users.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A very large quantity of biological data (taxonomic, demographic, and life-
history) and associated environmental description is available nationally,
but access is fragmented, and very serious data gaps exist regionally and
taxonomically. |
2. Over the shortterm, existing data bases should be viewed as underutilized
national resources. Existing data in museum collections, at biological field
stations, in ecological research institutes, and in large-scale or long-term
university-based ecological research should be treated as an information
resource to be made accessible in the first years of a national biological
survey to a national audience of users.
3. Data management systems should be planned so as to benefit both the
primary research and secondary users of the data bases. The sometimes
conflicting viewpoints of different types of users and institutions should be
reconciled so that data management practices complement each other.
4. One of the long-term products of a national biological survey should be a
synthesis of such data, possibly in the form of an Ecosystem Data Handbook.
LITERATURE CITED
Armentano, T. V. & O. L. Loucks. 1979. Ecological and environmental data as under-utilized na-
tional resources: results of the TIE/ACCESS program. U.S. Department of Energy Contract No.
EY-76-S-05- 5213. The Institute of Ecology TIE, Indianapolis, Indiana. 98 p.
Kruzas, A. T. & A. E. Schnitzer (eds.). 1971. Encyclopedia of information systems and services, \st
ed. Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1105 p.
Lauff, G. H. 1982. Data management at biological field stations. Report of a workshop held at the
W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University. National Science Foundation, Wash-
ington, DC. 46 p.
Lee, W. L., B. M. Bell, & J. F. Sutton. 1982. Guidelines for acquisition and management of biological
specimens. Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 42 p.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA BASES 117
National Research Council. 1982. Data management and computation. Volume 1: issues and rec-
ommendations. Committee on Data Management and Computation, Space Science Board. Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington, DC. 147 p.
The Institute of Ecology. 1979. Feasibility study report on a proposed Ecosystems Data Handbook.
Report to the National Science Foundation. (Grant DEB 75-20525.) TIE, Indianapolis, Indiana.
70 p.
a
‘
ie Ne
ne |
‘
ties: Bae beso
Hise af Wyte al
ot eilahy more Gx
; ‘Pysneee
a Ee eears . %
a a!
Sires tet)
ry
7 5)
pesigd
Development of
Research Information Systems:
Concepts and Practice!
Melvin I. Dyer
Michael P. Farrell
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Abstract: This paper provides a review of system-oriented constraints on the
development of a nationally integrated data base to serve the needs for a
national biological survey. Such an effort must take cognizance of the classical
“Tragedy of the Commons” scenario to avoid critical pitfalls. An important
new awareness is developing around the subject of hierarchical ordering in
biological and environmental systems, and this subject needs to be considered
in depth in the development of a national biological survey. Development of
specific programs to attend to problems of uncertainty and aggregation in the
construction and use of data sets is particularly important. We present rec-
ommendations for a two-tiered system to assemble and disseminate infor-
mation for a National Biological System. One tier is for the individual user,
and the other is for use prompted by large, centralized programs funded by
any government or private agency that has a specific mandate to address.
Keywords: Research Data Management Organization, User Orientation,
“Tragedy of the Commons,” System Hierarchy, Uncertainty Analysis, Prob-
lems In Aggregation.
INTRODUCTION
Many groups stating an inherent interest in a U.S. national biological survey
are represented in this volume: academicians interested in assuring that valuable
biological and systematics data are cared for; state scientists and administrators
wanting to ensure that biological and environmental information is available for
the well-being of their constituencies; federal scientists and administrators charged
with large and wide-ranging mandates for resources in the whole of the U.S.; and
private industry scientists and administrators interested in a variety of problems
ranging from environmental concerns to those with more local or immediate
needs in industry. Added to this group are those from outside the U.S. who have
'Research sponsored in part by the Carbon Dioxide Research Division, U.S. Department
of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Sys-
tems, Inc.
I19
120 DYER AND FARRELL
expressed their points of view. This wide scope places extreme demands on any
system that purports to assemble and disseminate information on the scale called
for by most authorities stating their opinions here. That a national biological
survey would be an excellent idea when implemented is not questioned; rather,
what is consistently emphasized is the plea to assemble a useful and trustworthy
system. That, of course, is a daunting task in view of experiences with environ-
mental data assemblages. What are some of the technological and theoretical
limitations that we must regard for development of a national biological survey,
and what then are some of the known ways that technological solutions can be
applied to solve some of the difficulties?
DEVELOPMENTAL PHILOSOPHY
The “Tragedy of the Commons” and Research Data Banks
Garrett Hardin’s classic paper on the ““Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin,
1968) publicized events following attempts to structure activities about a com-
mons. Those same lessons hold for Research Data Management (RDM).
A commons is defined as anything that can be utilized or shared together by a
number of individuals. Many examples exist, but the one most easily understood
was originally put forward by Hardin (1968, 1974), that of grazing lands, not
individually owned, where individual herders graze their cattle. As long as the
carrying capacity of the commons is kept in order, there is no difficulty. However,
therein lies the potential for the tragedy, the essence of unfolding dramas. Each
individual seeks to maximize his or her gain, thereby incrementally stressing the
system. As long as the system is infinitely robust, there will be no difficulty, but,
as we all know, systems are bounded and finite. Thus, there will come a point
where the original system will cease to function because its capacity for responding
positively is exceeded. As long as use of the commons operates without external
controls it can never be self-correcting. The reason is simple. Hardin showed that
benefits accruing to the individual by incrementally increasing use are + 1, whereas
the negative utility for that individual is only a fraction of —1. Therefore, the
gains of cheating to the individual are always greater than are any deficits so long
as the system is capable of sustaining the increased demands. It is when everyone
applies this principle that the system collapses, to the detriment of everyone.
How does this fit with the development of RDM? Interestingly, it fits in two
ways: 1) from the standpoint of entry of information, and 2) from the use of
information stored in files. Both affect the quality of the information emanating
from the overall use of the entire RDM program. We must also consider how
inputs and outputs are structured when information is gathered from the scientific
community at large and how this structuring affects programs designed to develop
and acquire information that are funded for special purposes.
The first way that the Tragedy of the Commons can affect RDM is in the initial
effort to acquire data. For example, while working on the International Biological
Program, one of us (MID) was active in a task for assembling what was purported
to be “all”? of the information collected by the Grassland Biome Project for
incorporation into a data bank. The data bank was needed to synthesize infor-
mation gathered during this experimental entreé into what was billed as “big
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS 121
biology” (Hammond, 1972). In attempting to pull together the information from
many sites over many years, 1t was necessary for MID to contact the scientists
who had contributed to the Grassland Biome Project in an attempt to acquire
their data sets. Published papers, analyzed but unpublished data, and sometimes
raw data were involved. From the outset, central program staff sought to incor-
porate quality control into the data bank development. Several methods were
proposed to achieve this aim, but eventually each investigator simply was asked
to certify that the information he or she was providing was correct and accurate
to within a certain level of error. Great resistance was encountered from the
investigators, particularly in regard to data for which no peer-reviewed papers
had been published. Ultimately the grand design for a massive data bank con-
taining all Grassland Biome Information collapsed, partially because it was not
possible to certify the accuracy of the information.
How does this story relate to the commons? It does so through the fact that
each individual operating as he or she chose as a responsible scientist could not
be made to feel that they were a part of the commons unless their own interests
were served first. The positive component was either a publication of the data
sets with their names, or the assurance that the information was indeed the best
they could provide. Many investigators could not provide assurances of quality
control because of their need to publish the information, and moreover, that
tackling the job was worthwhile. Thus the peer-review process is deeply embedded
in building a commons for RDM purposes (Marzolf and Dyer, 1986). We have
no statistical data for this variation of the tragedy of the commons in environ-
mental sciences and ecology today, but we suspect that it happens often. It has
backlash, as was exhibited during a National Science Foundation forum held in
1980 to review the second round of recommendations related to Experimental
Ecological Reserves. Remarks were brought forward at the end of that meeting
about quality control not being assured until full peer-reviewed publication. Frus-
tration about such apparent need for publication was expressed by agency man-
agers in one person’s statement: ““We simply cannot wait for the pages of Ecological
Monographs to appear before our decisions can be made.” Doubtless that state-
ment is true. However, if it is equally true that the most prudent way for infor-
mation to become acceptable by all in the commons is through the peer-review
process, then the question remains, do we have much of a choice? We can hastily
assemble data and information for emergency measures and hope they are ac-
ceptable, or we can develop a quality-assured information base, one with a greater
chance of withstanding the scrutiny of time, by the slower route— obtaining data
from research appearing in the commons through the well-established and ac-
cepted peer-review process. The main difference is that published data, while not
infallible, probably are the most cost-effective source over the long term. The
open literature pathway is slower, and its total data assemblage undoubtedly
smaller, than initially inexpensive but hastily prepared surveys. However, the
published record is more often than not the authority. This, too, is part of the
Tragedy of the Commons.
The second way that the Tragedy of the Commons can affect RDM is through
the use of data in centralized data banks. The data bank is itself the commons.
For logistical and economic reasons, such a commons probably exists in only
122 DYER AND FARRELL
limited form. This means that access to most data banks is limited and probably
cannot be made available to all potential users in a society, much the same way
that not everyone who wants to can graze cattle on western rangeland. Similarly
the users who can access the data bank have constraints dictated by the commons.
Because it is costly to organize and run a data bank, some sort of financing system
must be developed. Although an organization sometimes assumes all financial
obligations, usually the standard is a fee system in which costs are allocated to
each potential user, most often based on anticipated use and estimated ability to
pay. Often a data bank is subsidized in a number of ways. If that is the case, then
the true meaning of the Tragedy of the Commons becomes fully apparent. If those
who are most wealthy feel they are subsidizing the operation by paying the largest
fees, they may tend to feel they can monopolize the data bank resources much
the same way that the largest cattle owner might tend to monopolize the best
grazing lands or those containing the water sources. Those who can afford lesser
units of usage, but who still have responsibilities or requirements that cause them
to spend time on the system, will tend to use it on increasing incremental bases.
The ultimate fate of such developments is the tendency for RDM or computer
systems to become plugged with longer and longer queues, which become in-
creasingly unacceptable to the individual user. At some point the capacity of the
system is exceeded, followed by a variety of changes that ultimately may result
in major disruption of the RDM or even bankruptcy of the entire activity. Because
a problem now exists in the entire operation, effort is dedicated toward finding a
solution, most often some sort of technological solution. Depending upon the
nature of the problem and the type of solution, such technological changes may
or may not be welcome or even useful. Often the solution imposed is the creation
of new RDM centers or offshoots, developments that may not always be successful
since we now have lost the central facilities that seemed to make the RDM
commons needed in the first place. Hardin (1968) warned that not every problem
necessarily has a technological solution. This well may be the case for certain
types of RDM.
The “Catch 22” Problem
Another problem has emerged in conceptual form in the past few years that
must be addressed in the development of a national biological survey. We said
in the introduction that many persons attended this conference, each with their
own concept of what a national biological survey should contain. These concepts
range from thoughtful comments about the scientific needs for such a survey (Kim
and Knutson, 1986), catalogs listing diversity and genetic diversity in natural
systems (Steffan, 1986; Schonewald-Cox, 1986), and the state of systematics col-
lections (Chernoff, 1986) to agricultural ecosystems (Johnson, 1986; Klassen,
1986) to considerations of enormous natural systems (Loucks, 1986), conservation
matters (Jenkins, 1986), environmental protection (Hirsch, 1986), and finally a
combination of many of these (Risser, 1986).
This is obviously a complex set of interests. How do we organize the survey to
make it meaningful, yet simple enough to use and robust enough to persuade all
but the most recalcitrant potential users of its utility? The task is not easy. For
instance, critique of the development of the rather massive undertaking by the
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS 123
National Science Foundation in its Long-term Ecological Research Program was
centered about what the chosen sites should consider collecting for the long-term
record, and what should be the underlying bases for collecting such information.
In the sixth year of the research program, it is still not altogether clear in some
instances how to address these seemingly simple questions. A new question is
now being posed: Is it possible to address ecological problems of the future when
information being collected today does not have those future questions to drive
the collection process? Certainly we all know that published data or pre-existing
but unreported data sets are sometimes valuable for problems we encounter today,
and we are delighted when that comes about. But, we argue, this is truly serendipity
that we accept after the fact. Thus, at the same time we ask whether scientists as
representatives of society can responsibly construct a program on ipso facto bases,
solely for the sake of hoping that someone someday will be able to use the
information. This places us in a “double bind”’ (a condition identified by Bateson
as discussed by Hardin, 1968), which is somewhat related to the idiomatic expres-
sion of “Catch 22” introduced by Heller (1955). If we do not know what the
question is, how can we collect information about it? Our way out of this problem
has been to use overall experience and generalizations to structure new programs.
But, if we choose wrongly, can we then address the now unknown questions that
almost certainly will emerge later? This is the first part of the “Catch 22.” Since
we recognize this as a paradox, our first reaction is to turn to technology for the
answer, regardless of whether it helps us or not. Here our technological solution
is “then let’s collect everything we can, hoping that someday it will be useful.”
This action activates the second phase of the ““Catch 22.’ Can we possibly afford
to “‘collect information about everything,” and, if we can, will we be able to sort
the wheat from the chaff when the problems of the future arise for which we were
purportedly laying plans? The probable answer is sometimes yes, but, unfortu-
nately, more often no. Nonetheless, we must alway keep in mind the continuous
task of incorporating older data sets into the RDM.
This point brings us full circle in planning for a national biological survey. We
submit that we are almost carrying out this scenario today in modern biological
and ecological science. We have literally thousands of research staff in universities
and laboratories in the U.S. and elsewhere collecting information, only part of
which ultimately become placed in the public record. Once again we have dem-
onstrated a facet of Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons.
NEW PERSPECTIVES
The Hierarchical Nature of Biological and Ecological Systems
To this point we have painted a rather cynical picture of the development of
a national biological survey system which, ironically, we fully support. How might
we avoid some of the commons tragedies and problems with scenarios where we
introduce technology as a solution, where with a bit of thought we can realize
that there are no technological solutions? The first subject we might address is
that of how the information ought to be organized. There is increasing awareness
that biological and ecological associations exist in a hierarchical manner, and it
follows that information (data or models about them) should be organized in a
124 DYER AND FARRELL
similar manner (Allen and Starr, 1983; Allen et al., 1984). We cannot give a recipe
for the formulation, but we foresee that this approach to the problem of building
a reasonably interactive and accessible information base with very large and
disparate entities will pay off. The types of information called for by those inter-
ested in systematics collections can be made to fit this scheme easily because they
are hierarchical in the first place. Those systems with greater amounts of com-
plexity, such as the types that Loucks (1986) has reviewed, can also be made more
tractable by hierarchical ordering. Only in this way can the enormous task of
constructing the national biological survey system be accomplished.
Analysis of Uncertainty and Understanding of Problems in Aggregation
Before giving our attention to the framework we advocate for developing the
national biological survey, we turn to one last subject, which is academic now,
but in the future will have to be regarded routinely for almost every use of any
data assemblage, such as that being considered for the national biological survey,
particularly if information collected from small-scale endeavors is aggregated into
large-scale syntheses.
Expression of component error is an inherent part of our modern biological
and ecological world, thanks to decades-long development of mathematical and
statistical methods. But as we leave observations of individuals and turn our
attention toward groupings or aggregations of observation, we must invoke models
of the world from which we extract individual measurements. We have had to
reorganize our thoughts about uncertainty in cases in which data—and models
for expressing the meaning of those data—are used (Gardner, in press). Instead
of having discrete units to assemble from a data source (nature or data banks),
we now must consider assemblages or rate processes, graphic plots of which are
often statistically smoothed out or skewed. Thus it is not a simple task to show
cause and effect relationships in answer to many biological and ecological ques-
tions. To date these techniques have been applied to a variety of environmental
problems: radiological assessment (Hoffman and Gardner, 1983; O’Neill et al.,
1981), generic problems dealt with by ecological models (O’Neill and Gardner,
1979), assessment models (Downing et al., 1985), stream ecosystem models (Gard-
ner et al., 1981), marsh hydrology model (Gardner et al., 1980a), global carbon
models (Gardner et al., 1980b), and predator-prey models (Gardner et al., 1980c).
In all instances, information that included data from data banks was used along
with a variety of models to provide an in-depth assessment ofa particular problem.
Even though much emphasis was placed on ways to assess uncertainty in modeling
studies, the lesson is clear. Studies involving models cannot be divorced from
data, particularly during validation and use of those models for planning or de-
veloping management alternatives.
Once it has been decided to invoke information from a data bank, it is necessary
to account for discrepancies that might be there. A simple example is the extrap-
olation of information from point sources to a spatially large scale. This is often
needed, particularly for environmental concerns, because, for economic reasons,
seldom are studies repeated uniformly over large expanses of space, or over all
time periods necessary to represent the problem at hand. Coupled with the un-
certainty analyses is the question of how one should aggregate information to
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS b25
avoid problems with error (Gardner et al., 1982). Because complexity forces
ecologists to deal with aggregates at some point, some attention must be given to
the way error affects the ability of an investigator to assemble meaningful project
descriptions. This will be especially important to the development of a national
biological survey as it brings together a program in which data and models must
be used for an assessment.
Lastly, as exercises involving models and data are performed, what should their
fates be? Are those results not then equally good candidates for inclusion into the
national biological survey?
RESEARCH DATA MANAGEMENT SCHEMA
The intent for a Research Data Management program is manifold. It must
satisfy the overall requirements first set globally, and it should satisfy the needs
of any individual who wants to utilize it. For a national biological survey this is
a daunting requirement. However, we assert, the underpinnings of such a system
lie in ensuring that the individual user can be satisfied. The example cited earlier
about the U.S. IBP experience is instructive. If the individual is unfettered by
superfluous administrative and management restraints and unencumbered by
extraordinarily complex hardware and software systems, then, in our estimation,
the system will work. Personal computer hardware technology and sophisticated
software development have combined in recent years to release us from having
to create the Tragedy of the Commons in the development of a national biological
survey. Once the overall intent, scope, and approach are established and agreed
upon, then the fate of the project will ultimately reside in the hands of the indi-
vidual scientists who can work in close association with the administrators of the
program.
Having said that, we now want to progress to the design of a project that has
served well thus far in instances of government and industry where these design
criteria have been applied. The first such system design we will address has
programmatic components of a very general nature to help the individual user.
The design has as its central focus the needs of the research and development
community where specific problems require extensive data bank entities, but the
problems may be more localized or of a smaller scale, such as an examination of
floral or faunal characteristics of the country or the development of descriptions
of highly specific or long-term phenomena. The second system design addresses
truly large biological or environmental problems, such as global carbon problems
or acidic deposition, where the magnitude of the problem requires well-defined
group dynamics of a large organization. The first design more often addresses the
needs of the individual investigator or large groups of small teams, whereas the
second design addresses governmental or private agencies with special tasks and
where large numbers of investigators in relatively few work forces are assembled.
Research Data Management for Small Programs
The individual investigator must decide whether his or her research projects
will benefit from a formal Research Data Management program. This decision
will probably be made on the basis of the type and volume of information being
collected and the overall complexity of the project. For those investigators, many
126 DYER AND FARRELL
options are open, ranging from simple programs they may develop themselves to
sophisticated commercial spreadsheet programs now available for use on personal
computers.
For larger integrated programs where several investigators collaborate or for
specific organizations such as biological stations, there is a growing awareness of
the need for the development of a centralized data and information management
system. The most recent review of protocols, concepts, and everyday usage was
presented at a symposium of data management for the National Science Foun-
dation’s Long-term Ecological Research Program (Michener and Marozas, 1986).
Many of the papers published in the proceedings of this symposium dealt with
aiding the individual investigator who is attached to either interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary projects or who works at a national or state facility. The subject
is discussed in considerable depth in the symposium proceedings, and we will not
give additional coverage here. Individuals and projects that follow the precepts
presented in that publication can avoid pitfalls we discussed in the first section
of this paper.
How Do We Start: A Case History
“One of the most important components of this information flow is the timely
exchange of accurate, usable data. Thus, the data coordination function becomes
one of the most important areas that must be addressed within the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP)” (Benkovitz and Farrell, 1983). Sub-
stitute NBS (National Biological Survey) for NAPAP and the statement describes
the situation faced by the development of a national biological survey: What
should we do about RDM needs? The solution for the NAPAP was to have a
Data Coordination Plan drafted, reviewed by the participants, updated/changed,
and, finally, implemented. The NAPAP plan identified two levels of coordination
needed in managing the data flow within the program. A first level of coordination
was set to define the substantive contents of the needed data; these included
variables to be measured, geographic and temporal coverage, minimum level of
disaggregation, quality assurance procedures, etc. A second level of coordination
was needed to define data-access techniques, possible transfer formats, software
selection, etc. To implement these levels of coordination, two complementary
activites were implemented: (1) creation of the Data Coordination Core Activity
(DCCA) within the Interagency Task Force (ITF), whose job it is to ensure the
fulfillment of the methodology and data requirements of the assessment activities,
and (2) the expansion of the DCCA structure to include the design and imple-
mentation of the data management support facilities to carry out integrated as-
signments. This two-phased approach by the ITF appears to have been very
successful. In fact, a group established at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
implement most of the activities has been a valuable resource to the NAPAP
when new data-intensive tasks are needed (e.g., Lake Water Quality Survey).
Obviously, the above case history demonstrates the need for drafting a data
coordination plan for a national biological survey, plans for which could be very
similar to, or very different from, the NAPAP plan; we do not know which at
this time. What is clear is that the Tragedy of the Commons’ scenario outlined
previously has an unfortunately better chance of being on-target without a data
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS 27
coordination plan as compared to starting the national biological survey program
with an implementation plan that can serve as a temporary model.
The Information Analysis Center
If the Data Coordination Plan is successful in identifying the practical aspects
of information and data flow within a program, then a group must be identified
to handle specific tasks such as development of RDM techniques and scientific
and technical information (STI) exchanges. However, there is more to the problem
than putting staff together to handle the various tasks. Can this group enhance
the information/data so that a “‘product’’ from the data is improved, 1.e. more
complete in documentation, evaluated/certified, error-free, etc.? The answer is
yes, but do not look for many groups spanning the spectrum of activities needed
by large research programs such as the national biological survey. The lack of
broad-based information groups is not because of the inability to identify the
need but rather the lack of funding. Adding value to information is expensive
and is not often recognized as critical to the success of a program. However, those
programs with identified and funded information analysis centers have a direct,
tangible benefit to be gained from adopting this information enhancement model.
For example, the Carbon Dioxide Information Center (CDIC) of Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carbon
Dioxide Research Division, maintains, summarizes, and distributes information
resulting from CO, research worldwide. The nature of CDIC’s charter dictated
that CDIC be more than an information clearinghouse—more than an organi-
zation that collects and disseminates “‘information about information’”’ concerning
CO,. A “‘value added”’ concept was adopted that permitted CDIC to process,
assure quality, document, disseminate, and evaluate CO,-related information. It
was decided that CDIC would follow the “‘information analysis center’? model
characterized by staff trained in various scientific disciplines related to DOE’s
research areas (climatology, botany, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, mathematics,
oceanography, etc.), the computer sciences, and various information science spe-
cialties (bibliographic systems, information extraction, information searches, etc.).
Hence, CDIC’s multi-talented technical staff maintains an information analysis
center that interacts with the CO, research community worldwide and DOE’s
programmatic components on a broad scientific spectrum, performing original
analysis of extant data, evaluating scientific reports (as opposed to abstracting
information), and testing and documenting complex computer models.
We believe that the information analysis center concept is critical to the success
of a national biological survey. As with the CO, issue and CDIC’s role in that
program, a national biological survey is also a long-term project that must integrate
STI from multidisciplinary sources. The prospect of adding value to the STI is
overwhelmingly supportive of establishing a national biological survey infor-
mation analysis center. In fact, we feel that establishing such a center is an im-
mediate obligation of NBS program management.
128 DYER AND FARRELL
PROBLEMS IN APPLYING RESEARCH DATA MANAGEMENT
TO THE NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Creation of a National Biological Survey Information Analysis Center would
solve most of the problems of coordinating activities among investigators, research
programs and various agencies. However, creating a RDM structure that is re-
sponsive and appropriate for the national biological survey will not be a trivial
task. It is true that many software tools exist to bridge the identified needs, but
the philosophy of RDM is currently heavily influenced by the business environ-
ment. In this section we wish to point out our experiences working in the research
environment and elaborate on our ideas of what an RDM system should be and
how to ensure that the RDM structure does not hinder the science behind the
program.
The General Problem
The foundation of sound research data base (RDB) management is detailed
planning (Martin, 1976). One who manages such a data base is usually barraged
by the apparent need for flowcharts, PERT diagrams, cross-reference libraries,
directional dictionaries, and a host of other “‘aids”’ designed to increase efficiency
and/or ensure that the final product will accomplish the project goals. Plans for
recovering data sets, sorting strategies, merging and updating capabilities, and
accomplishing intercomputer exchanges must be planned well in advance with
few allowances for “lurking variables” (Box et al., 1979). The research data man-
ager must also give detailed breakdowns on development time, personnel and
computer costs, and the lead time necessary to develop the application programs
even though the project may be several years away with the possibility of personnel
turnover and hardware changes.
Informal polls among research data managers indicate that an increasing num-
ber of research data management systems are not being developed as outlined in
many of the leading references in this field. For example, flowcharting, one of the
backbones of the industry, has been shown to be an academic exercise with little
application or help to real world complex data base problems. PERT diagrams
are very informative after the final report is written. Dictionaries, fixed sorting
strategies, cumbersome merging capabilities, data set recovery problems, etc., are
no longer problem areas because of software developments.
Furthermore, most research data managers find it difficult, if not impossible,
to cost-justify more than a cursory research data management plan. Time estimates
for development are usually too long and must be reduced. In addition, cost
estimates may be very inaccurate when many research programs cannot identify
all the variables or data base formats that will ultimately be necessary for analysis
and report generation.
Despite the previously mentioned problems in research data management ap-
plications, a discernable naivety regarding economic feasibility 1s associated with
many of the currently published reports dealing with RDM. One of the principal
reasons may be the different approaches in research data management found
among applied contract researchers with strict budgetary constraints and univer-
sity-based research programs with their more liberal approach to computer-related
costs. Although free computer time at universities is becoming rare, there still
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS liz9
exists such a price differential as to perhaps subliminally encourage many of the
data management strategies popularized in reference material.
Another area of concern in RDM is the problem (most obvious among research
data managers trained as programmers) of viewing most projects as unique with
unique solutions. The list of in-house-developed data base management programs
written in FORTRAN and/or COBOL specifically for a project must be prodi-
gious. Our own experiences could supply a long list of data base management
structures so specific as to preclude any general use and often meeting only a small
proportion of the needs of the RDB manager because of cost overruns, program-
ming problems, or changes in the project’s emphasis. On the other hand, this
tendency to “reinvent the wheel’ does not seem as popular among research data
managers who have been trained in areas other than programming and who are
aware of the new application programs currently available on lease or purchase
options.
The National Biological Survey and Research Data Management
Unlike many other projects, a national biological survey will probably have
most of its problems identified previously, with project goals often defined more
appropriately after the study becomes operational. Many times at the start of a
project, variable selection and research data formats are tentative because of the
unknown biological complexity that may be encountered. Potential ways to sum-
marize the data base are usually more numerous than money permits. Lead time
for development of even a simple RDM structure is usually nonexistent. Research
data managers frequently become involved with a project only shortly before data
collection, with the subsequent need for immediate data summarization, so that
the project may be modified before the next scheduled sampling period. In such
an atmosphere, where the research data managers face a project that will provide
answers by an iterative process and in which there will be major changes in the
data base content and structure, the manager cannot hope to spend many days
planning the specifics of the RDM, and only infrequently can the cost of devel-
opment of such an RDM be justified.
Faced with the uncertainties of managing a national biological survey data base,
a research data manager is expected to provide a project with a skeleton of a data
management system that can add broad ranges of new variables, reformat existing
variables, perform unanticipated analyses; provide computer-generated tables and
copy-ready figures that will be formatted at the conclusion of the study, and, in
general, produce immediate answers via a time-sharing system but provide the
capability to reduce the cost of large, complex analyses via batch operations.
Superimposed on the above list, the system development must not demand ex-
cessively large and complex programming tasks. The system must be cost-effective,
with costs ranging from 5 to 10 percent of the total project funds. Furthermore,
the need for a system analyst to manage and construct the data base is, by project
definition, counterproductive. The requirement to have a research data manager
is often considered an unnecessary burden to the project and may jeopardize the
project’s financial capability to measure other important variables or eliminate
some other aspect of the project. If the project group includes a statistician, it is
usually that person who is nominated to manage the data base.
130 DYER AND FARRELL
The System Selection
Although the usual decision as to the choice of appropriate software is often
based on hardware availability, an appropriate software system should be selected
unencumbered by the normal hardware consideration. The projected software
system for a national biological survey should meet the following five major system
selection criteria: 1) have vendor support of the system’s software including pro-
gramming applications, analysis programs, and help in troubleshooting user ap-
plications; 2) provide not only easily-programmed, user-oriented, flexible, and
hierarchical data management capabilities with canned instructions (e.g., sorting,
merging, updating), but also user-programmed instructions (e.g., input, output,
quality control checking); 3) provide a basic complement of statistical analysis
routines (i.e., means, standard deviation, analysis of variance, regression, etc.),
plotting and charting capabilities, and more advanced programs that may be
available in the system, programmable within the system, or available in other
packages that interface with the parent system; 4) provide a common syntax for
batch and time-shared operation; and 5) be cost-effective, not only in terms of
computer costs [e.g., core, central processing unit (CPU), input/output devices]
but also in terms of the personnel time needed for implementation and mainte-
nance.
Planning Versus Open-Ended Management
All data management structures must be planned. What is perhaps not clear is
the amount and direction of planning necessary after an advanced analysis package
has been selected. Detailed planning of research data bases appears to be inversely
proportional to the degree to which the selected package meets the system selection
criteria outlined previously. If adherence to the criteria is high, then planning the
RDM system can be minimal, with sessions devoted to determining output for-
mats and requirements and any specialized analysis programs needed but not
contained in the package. On the other hand, when a selected package has major
omissions or when adherence is low, in regard to the system selection criteria,
planning time is usually increased with more emphasis being placed on the basic
problems of research data management such as variable input formats, internal
file construction, sorting, merging, and updating. Therefore, adherence to the
system selection criteria permits the research data manager to be more involved
with the end-product requirements of the study, such as copy-ready graphical
displays, computer-generated tables, and quality control assurances. In turn, the
scientist involved with reporting the findings of the study benefits from this new
end-product orientation of the research data manager. Now the scientists can
become more involved with interpreting results of the study than with editing
mandated by an ineffective system. Furthermore, decisions that were previously
based on inflexible computer programs can be modified to place the emphasis on
the scientist’s needs. As a result, efficiency is gained in field operations, where the
majority of cost is usually involved, without additional cost to the data manage-
ment program.
The term ‘“‘open-ended research data base management’’ (OE/RDM) has been
coined to describe this philosophy of data management that supports a minimal
planning effort, one in which the emphasis is placed on computer-related needs
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS 131
at the completion of the study (Farrell et al., 1979). Obviously, an OE/RDM
strategy will not work for all types of programs, nor for all levels of experience
in executing the selected package. In addition, OE/RDM may not be appropriate
as a working system because of program emphasis and/or the degree to which the
selected package meets the system-selection criteria.
We feel that a national biological survey will need to implement an OE/RDM
to meet the challenging and changing nature of the program.
SUMMARY
A national biological survey without an effective research data manager embed-
ded in an information analysis center that is the result of a tactical and strategic
plan will probably fail to meet the expectations of the scientific community. If
such a plan is not implemented, we predict that the Tragedy of the Commons
will, once again, claim another noble experiment. It seems that we are in a position
with the development of a national biological survey to avoid playing out the
tragedy. This conference is a first start towards a real solution of how to initiate
a national biological survey. We hope our comments are taken as positive and
constructive, not as pessimistic or stultifying. As we stated, we support the de-
velopment of a national biological survey program and hope that some of our
comments will serve to help build the model for this program.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, T. F. H. & T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: perspective for ecological complexity. The University
of Chicago Press. 310 p.
Allen, T. F. H., R. V. O’Neill, & T. W. Hoekstra. 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research
and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Report RM-10, Fort Collins, Colorado. 11 p.
Benkovitz, C. M. & M. P. Farrell. 1983. Data coordination program plan for the interagency task
force on acid precipitation. Brookhaven National Laboratory Report No. 51845, 34 p.
Box, G. E. P., S. Hunter, & W. Hunter. 1979. Statistics for experimenters. John Wiley and Sons,
New York. 653 p.
Chernoff, B. 1986. Systematics and long-range ecologic research. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson
(eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collections, Law-
rence, Kansas.
Downing, D. J., R. H. Gardner, & F. O. Hoffman. 1985. An examination of response-surface
methodologies for uncertainty analysis in assessment models. Technometrics 27: 151-163.
Farrell, M. P., A. D. Mayoun, & K. Daniels. 1979. Management of evolving ecological data sets
with SAS: An open ended management approach. In: Proceedings of the Fourth SAS Users Group,
International SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. 453 p.
Gardner, R. H. In press. Error analysis and sensitivity analysis in ecology. In: M. Singh (ed.).
Encyclopedia of systems and control. Pergamon Press, London.
Gardner, R. H., D. H. Huff, R. V. O’Neill, J. G. Mankin, J. Carney, & J. Jones. 1980a. Application
of error analysis to a marsh hydrology model. Water Resources Res. 16: 659-664.
Gardner, R. H., J. B. Mankin, & W. R. Emanuel. 1980b. A comparison of three carbon models.
Ecological Modelling 8: 313-332.
Gardner, R. H., R. V. O’Neill, J. B. Mankin, & D. Kumar. 1980c. Comparative error analysis of
six predator-prey models. Ecology 61: 323-332.
Gardner, R. H., R. V. O’Neill, J. B. Mankin, & J. H. Carney. 1981. A comparison of sensitivity
analysis and error analysis based on a stream ecosystem model. Ecological Modelling 12: 173-
190.
Gardner, R. H., W. G. Cale, & R. V. O’Neill. 1982. Robust analysis of aggregation error. Ecology
63: 1771-1779.
132 DYER AND FARRELL
Hammond, A. L. 1972. Ecosystem analysis: biome approach to environmental research. Science
175: 46-48.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.
Hardin, G. 1974. Living on a lifeboat. BioScience 24: 561-568.
Heller, J. 1955. Catch-22. Dell Publishing Company, New York. 463 p.
Hirsch, A. 1986. The role of a national biological survey in environmental protection. Jn: Kim, K.
C. and L. Knutson (eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics
Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Hoffman, F. O. & R. H. Gardner. 1983. Evaluation of uncertainties in environmental radiological
assessment models. Jn: J. E. Till and H. R. Meyer (eds.). Radiological assessment: a textbook on
environmental dose assessment. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. NUR-
EG/CR-3332, ORNL-5968.
Jenkins, R. E. 1986. Applications and use of biological survey data. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson
(eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collections, Law-
rence, Kansas.
Johnson, R. L. 1986. Plant protection and a national biological survey. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L.
Knutson (eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collec-
tions, Lawrence, Kansas.
Kim, K. C. & L. Knutson. 1986. Scientific bases for a national biological survey. Jn: Kim, K. C. and
L. Knutson (eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Col-
lections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Klassen, W. 1986. Agricultural research: the importance of a national biological survey in environ-
mental protection. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson (eds.). Foundations for a national biological
survey. Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Loucks, O. L. 1986. Database structure and management. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson (eds.).
Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence,
Kansas.
Martin, J. 1976. Principles of data-base management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
352.).
Marzof, G. R. & M. I. Dyer. 1986. Summary and future directions of research data management in
ecology. Jn: W. Michener and M. Marozas (eds.). Research data management in the ecological
sciences. Proc. Symposium Nov. 4-7, 1984, Hobcaw Barony, Georgetown, South Carolina, Uni-
versity of South Carolina Press.
Michener, W. & M. Marozas. 1986. Research data management in the ecological sciences. Proc.
Symposium Nov. 4-7, 1984, Hobcaw Barony, Georgetown, South Carolina. University of South
Carolina Press.
O’Neill, R. V. & R. H. Gardner. 1979. Sources of uncertainty in ecological models. Jn: B. P. Zeigler,
M. S. Elzas, G. J. Kliv, and T. I. Oren (eds.) Methodology in systems modelling and simulation.
North Holland Publishing Co.
O’Neill, R. V., R. H. Gardner, F. O. Hoffman, & G. Schwarz. 1981. Parameter uncertainty and
estimated radiological dose to man from atmospheric '3'I releases: A Monte Carlo approach.
Health Physics 40: 760-764.
Risser, P. G. 1986. State and private legislative and historical perspectives. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L.
Knutson (eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collec-
tions, Lawrence, Kansas.
Schonewald-Cox, C. 1986. Diversity, germplasm and natural resources. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L.
Knutson (eds.). Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collec-
tions, Lawrence, Kansas.
Steffan, W. A. 1986. Biological survey data: introduction. Jn: Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson (eds.).
Foundations for a national biological survey. Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence,
Kansas.
Public and Scientific
Dissemination of National
Biological Survey Data
Nancy R. Morin
Missouri Botanical Garden
Abstract: The primary medium by which information will be disseminated
from a national biological survey will be hardcopy publication. As computer
technology advances, information may be disseminated through diskettes, tapes,
and online access, which also-are considered here to be publications that might
result from a national biological survey. A national biological survey could
make previously produced, relevant publications more accessible and could
serve to coordinate production of new publications under an easily indexed
and retrievable single series. By canvassing existing literature and available
specialists, a national biological survey could identify specific areas in which
publications are urgently needed and could encourage and facilitate work on
such publications. Among the kinds of publications that might be produced
under the auspices of a national biological survey are systematic surveys of
major groups on a national basis, checklists of species, monographs of taxa,
and special reports on selected subsets or attributes of organisms (e.g., life
forms, chromosome numbers, distribution). The steps taken in the Flora of
North America project provide an example of those that might be taken by a
national biological survey toward production of other urgently needed publi-
cations. These steps are to define the need, assess resources, identify potential
users, and design a workable organization for completion of the project. A
maximally useful national biological survey should coordinate such efforts,
sponsor or facilitate publication, and help disseminate the resulting informa-
tion.
Keywords: Checklists, Floras, Flora of North America Project, Monographs,
Publications.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to consider the kinds of publications that might
result from a national biological survey. These publications are likely to be pri-
marily systematic in nature, but ifa national biological survey also were to embrace
other disciplines many other kinds of publications might result as well.
The primary medium by which information will be disseminated from a na-
tional biological survey will be hardcopy publication. Although some major users
of national biological survey-generated information may have on-line electronic
access to the information, I believe that the expense and complexity of maintaining
123
134 MORIN
this capability will prohibit the majority of users from having such access. An
increasing number of people may prefer to have the information stored and
available on diskettes for use in personal computers, but storage of data on a
diskette is simply a variation on the book (hardcopy) theme and does not truly
represent a substantially different medium.
Most of the examples below relate to botany but are general enough to apply
to most groups of organisms. The publications mentioned are precisely the kinds
that have resulted from the research performed by systematic biologists through
the years or that systematic biologists have recognized as being needed in their
discipline. There is nothing novel about the kinds of publications that could be
expected from a national biological survey.
Why Have a National Biological Survey?
What contribution would a national biological survey make, then, if biologists
are already producing the kinds of publications that are needed? First, these
publications would become much more readily visible and available, especially
to biologists outside the subject discipline, because all publications could be as-
sociated with one easily indexed and retrievable series. In preparing this paper,
I searched several large biology libraries and concluded that it is extremely difficult
and time-consuming to locate information if one is not already familiar with the
literature of a particular discipline. Through this activity a national biological
survey would thus provide the scientific community with a mechanism to assure
that such information is made accessible to all users, thereby facilitating inter-
disciplinary collaboration and helping to prevent unintentional duplication of
research effort.
Second is the question of need. Are biologists already producing all of the
publications needed? The answer is certainly no. But because of a lack of coor-
dination among researchers on various taxa, the scientific community is unable
to consider all organisms when ranking its needs. The first priority of a national
biological survey should thus be to determine which publications are most urgently
needed, after assessing the available resources. Needed publications already in
progress through individual or group effort outside of a national biological survey
might receive additional logistical or financial support from a national biological
survey. A national biological survey would provide the motivation and coordi-
nation required to produce needed publications for which expertise is currently
available. In those cases in which a publication is needed but there are no spe-
cialists capable of producing it, a national biological survey might be instrumental
in developing training programs or in encouraging universities to offer such pro-
grams.
KINDS OF PUBLICATIONS
Resources
The first publication generated by a national biological survey might appro-
priately be a guide to collections, specialists, and institutions of general interest
to biologists. Each of us in our own discipline probably has some kind of direc-
tory— perhaps produced by a professional society. For example, the “International
PUBLIC AND SCIENTIFIC DISSEMINATION OF DATA 135
Register of Specialists and Current Research in Plant Systematics” (Kiger et al.,
1981) and “Index Herbariorum I’’ (Holmgren et al., 1981) were compiled on the
basis of responses to extensive questionnaires, and both are used frequently by
botanists. Similar directories would be useful for other groups, with specialists
indexed alphabetically or by geographical location and by taxon and geographical
area of expertise and with collections indexed by taxon and geographical area. A
national biological survey could provide a mechanism to assure that such infor-
mation is made generally available and easily accessible to users—including bi-
ologists in other disciplines. For example, such accessibility would assist an ag-
ricultural extension officer trying to determine where to send for identification
specimens of a bramble suspected to be new to an area.
Complementary to publication of a listing of specialists would be a publication
of bibliographic assessment of the available literature. An example of such a
publication is the series ““Research Service Bibliographies,” produced by the State
Library of South Australia (e.g., Lovett, 1970). Many bibliographies certainly will
be published as a result of and to assist in the work of a national biological survey.
Many such bibliographies now exist, but the question again is how accessible are
they to potential users and which additional bibliographies are needed most ur-
gently for researchers to proceed efficiently with their work?
Information
Moving from a discussion about publications on information resources to the
information itself, we find that a national biological survey would make two major,
unique contributions. First, on the basis of our knowledge of available resources
and after an assessment of urgency, a national biological survey should help us
recognize specific areas exhibiting the greatest needs for publications. When these
needs have been identified, a national biological survey can encourage and provide
funding for the production of those publications. Second, where a treatment of
some kind is needed on a national scale, a national biological survey would
facilitate the coordination and funding of such a project. In examining the kinds
of publications that might be considered, I first examined those produced by other
national biological surveys, then analyzed those which had been produced by
other kinds of organizations or individuals. I concluded that our imaginations
may be the only limit to the kinds of documents that might be published. What
must be asked in each case is whether such a publication is needed, how urgent
it is, and if such a publication is already being produced by individuals or insti-
tutions.
Most prominent among national biological surveys are systematic surveys of
major groups, such as a flora or fauna. The Australian Bureau of Flora and Fauna
is producing a Flora of Australia, for instance. The first volume contains general
information about the Australian flora and a key to the families of flowering plants
of Australia (George, 1981). Subsequently published volumes treat the families
and include keys, descriptions, pertinent literature citations, maps, critical illus-
trations, and lists of representative specimens. This multi-volume work will not
serve as a field guide, but it was identified as the most urgently needed work for
this extremely diverse and interesting flora. A similar project is underway for the
flowering plants of southern African through the efforts of the Department of
136 MORIN
Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of South Africa. The authors have pro-
duced keys to and descriptions of the genera of southern African flowering plants
(Dyer, 1975) and are publishing synoptical treatments of families (Codd et al.,
1966-).
Variations on publications covering major taxa on a national basis range from
checklists of species for entire areas (e.g., Jessop, 1983), on the one hand through
comprehensive monographic treatments of all groups in an area on the other (e.g.,
Komarov et al., 1934-64).
To date, the information provided in these major works has not been saved in
a computerized database. A program called the European Documentation System
was recently instituted by V. H. Heywood (Heywood, unpub.) to enter the infor-
mation contained in Flora Europaea (Tutin et al., 1976) in a computerized da-
tabase. This information will be available online to users and will allow publication
of reports on numerous subsets of the information contained in this important
and massive flora. Development ofa similar database through a national biological
survey would not only facilitate production of such reports on the U.S. biota but
would also allow direct comparison between at least the floral aspect of the biota
of Europe and that of the U.S.
Works that cover selected subsets or attributes of the biota of an area include
a variety of topics. One subset includes regional works, such as The Flora of
Central Australia (Jessop, 1981), published by the Australian Systematic Botany
Society with government financing. A second subset treats life forms, for example
The Handbook of Native Trees of South Australia, produced by their Woods and
Forests Department (Boomsma, 1981). Still another subset includes specialized
information about all of the species in a region, for instance the Flora Europaea
Check-list and Chromosome Index (Moore, 1982), such as could be generated
easily from a complete national biological survey database and updated frequently.
Similarly, a comprehensive atlas of the distribution of groups, such as that pub-
lished on the European flora (Jalas and Suominen, 1983), could be generated from
information in a national biological survey database. Another subset could treat
parts or life stages of organisms, such as the desperately needed keys to the
identification of different life stages of insects. For plants, these publications might
include atlases of woods and seeds (Berggren, 1903-) and pollen (Cerceau-Larrival,
1980). Lists of and additional information about rare plants might also be pro-
duced (e.g., White and Johnson, 1980).
No current specialists may be available for some taxa in urgent need of thorough,
monographic work. These taxa would be identified by or highlighted in the kinds
of publications listed above. Research on such taxa might even be financed by a
national biological survey.
A national biological survey functioning in-the role of research coordinator and
general sounding board may lead to the discovery of needs for a variety of other
kinds of publications. A need may be found to convey scientific concepts to laymen
and to bring together technical information important to them in their work. If
extensive, monographic information on Cannabis, for example, were not already
available (Small, 1979), a national biological survey might have been the impetus
to organize a task force to conduct such studies and may then have provided the
editorial team necessary to see the resultant volumes through to completion.
PUBLIC AND SCIENTIFIC DISSEMINATION OF DATA 137
Examples of Projects
Specific needs for a comprehensive survey of the insect fauna of America have
been identified by the entomological community in North America. Plans for an
Insect Fauna of North America project have been under consideration for some
years now by the Entomological Society of America. Having identified the need,
the first priority was to determine the scope of this task—how many taxa would
be treated by this project and how well each was known. The second priority was
to inventory the available human and literature resources (Arnett, 1983).
The Flora of North America project is another good example of the steps a
national biological survey might take toward producing a publication. The need
for a publication on the plants of the U.S. and Canada has been recognized for
many decades. North America is the only major temperate area without such a
publication. Information on North American plants is dispersed in monographs
and articles and in regional and local publications. No unified synthesis of the
treatments of different floras has been published and many groups have never
been studied in detail. In 1965, the North American botanical community began
work on a project to produce a flora. That project continued until 1971, when
lack of funding forced suspension. The need has remained, however, and in 1982,
20 North American botanists met to discuss the possibility of trying again to
establish such a project. In 1982, the Canadian Botanical Association reaffirmed
its support of such an effort, and in 1983, the American Society of Plant Tax-
onomists passed a similar resolution. The need has been recognized and defined:
we need a synoptical flora that will cover all of the vascular plants north of Mexico.
We need more than that, but right now that is what is feasible for the botanical
community to produce.
Once the need was defined, a core group of plant taxonomists began the pre-
liminary work necessary to progress to the writing of the flora; this preliminary
work is still underway. We are assessing the human resources and the literature
to determine our level of knowledge for each taxon, which of the many groups
are already being studied by specialists, and for which groups specialists are
lacking. Having this information will allow us to alert the community to the
immediate needs of the project and to plan for expertise that will have to be
provided by the project staff. An editorial committee has been organized, and
plans for soliciting and reviewing manuscripts have been made. A databank will
be an integral part of the project and will allow publication of up-to-date atlases,
lists of chromosome numbers, etc., as well as provide a wealth of other kinds of
information about the flora. The flora project will synthesize the findings of recent
work and stimulate further research on the plants of North America. The multi-
volume work will be a compendium of information on the North American flora
and a practical aid to identification. The steps taken in this project, which would
also be the logical steps to be taken by a national biological survey, are as follows:
1. Identify the need for a publication,
2. Assess the resources to determine what expertise the community could pro-
vide and what must be provided by project staff,
3. Identify the potential users of the project and plan to design the publication
to be useful to as many users as possible,
138 MORIN
4. Design a workable organization for the project and proceed toward the
writing of the publication.
In the case of the insect fauna of North America, substantial logistical and
financial support may be needed from a national biological survey because of the
enormity of the task and the current lack of experts in critical groups. In the case
of the Flora of North America, the botanical community is already making fair
progress on the organization of this project: the experts and necessary staff and
editorial expertise are available, the organizational structure is in place. The pub-
lications could quite logically be considered part of a series produced under a
national biological survey umbrella.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The steps that a national biological survey should take relative to producing
publications are: |
Inventory Resources,
Assess Needs,
Coordinate Efforts,
Sponsor or Facilitate Publication,
Disseminate Information.
| eae
LITERATURE CITED
Arnett, R. H., Jr. 1983. Status of the taxonomy of the insects of America north of Mexico: a prelim-
inary report prepared for the Subcommittee for the Insect Fauna of North America Project. En-
tomological Society of America. College Park, Maryland.
Berggren, G. 1903. Atlas of seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species (Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, East Fennoscandia, and Iceland) with morphological descriptions. Berlings,
Arlov.
Boomsma, C. D. 1981. Native trees of South Australia. Woods and Forests Department, South
Australia, Bulletin 19, Second Edition.
Cerceau-Larrival, M.-T. 1980. Umbelliferae, Hydrocotyloideae, Hydrocotyleae Jn: Nilsson, S. (ed.).
1980. World pollen and spore flora 9. The Almqvist and Wiksell Periodical Company. Stockholm.
Codd, L. E., B. De Winter, & H. B. Rycroft. (eds.). 1966-. Flora of Southern Africa. Cape and
Transvaal Printers Limited, Republic of South Africa.
Dyer, R. A. 1975. The genera of southern African flowering plants. 2 Volumes. Botanical Research
Institute. Dept. of Agric. Tech. Services, Pretoria.
George, A.S. 1981. Flora of Australia. Bureau of Flora and Fauna, Canberra. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra. 7
Holmgren, P. K., W. Keuken, & E. K. Schofield, (compilers). 1981. Index Herbariorum Part I The
herbaria of the world. 7th edition. Dr. W. Junk B. V., The Hague/Boston.
Jalas, J. & J. Suominen (eds.). 1983. Atlas Florae Europaea: distribution of vascular plants in Europe.
The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo.
Jessop, J. (editor-in-chief). 1981. Flora of Central Australia. The Australian Systematic Botany
Society. A. H. and A. W. Reed Pty. Ltd. Sydney.
Jessop, J. P. (ed.). 1983. A list of the vascular plants of South Australia. Adelaide Botanic Gardens
and State Herbarium, and the Environmental Survey Branch, Department of Environment and
Planning, Adelaide.
Kiger, R. W., T. D. Jacobsen & R. M. Lilly. 1981. International register of specialists and current
research in plant systematics. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity. Pittsburgh.
Komaroy, R. L., et al. 1934-64. Flora S.S.S.R. Moscow/Leningrad. AN S.S.S.R. Press.
PUBLIC AND SCIENTIFIC DISSEMINATION OF DATA 139
Lovett, B. H. 1970. The geographical distribution of native plants in South Australia and the Northern
Territory: an index to articles in selected South Australian periodicals. Volume 1. Research Service
Bibliographies Series 4, No. 136. State Library of South Australia. Adelaide.
Moore, D.M. 1982. Flora Europaea check-list and chromosome index. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Small, E. 1979. The species problem. Jn: Cannabis: science and semantics. 2 Volumes. Corpus,
Toronto.
Tutin, T. G., et al. 1976. Flora Europaea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
White, D. J. & K. L. Johnson. 1980. The rare vascular plants of Manitoba. Sylogeus 27.
" '
> NS
ve
i
eS ie
bet 1 ‘
heme,
a 7 a ier og teeta
4a
a lla
Applications and Use of
Biological Survey Data
Robert E. Jenkins, Jr.
The Nature Conservancy
Abstract: The concept of a national biological survey is endorsed and the
main applications of such a survey are enumerated. A general framework for
the scope, structure, and operations of a national biological survey are sug-
gested. An existing system, the network of State Natural Heritage Inventory
Programs, is reviewed as an incomplete but advanced model and a possible
foundation for expansion for a national biological survey. Some currently un-
met needs are listed that might be dealt with by a national biological survey
through research or intensification of inventory. Several recommendations are
made about how to proceed in further encouraging the establishment of a
national biological survey.
Keywords: Biological Survey, Biological Diversity, Inventory, Conservation,
Natural Heritage.
INTRODUCTION
We need a national biological survey. For that matter, we need a national
ecological service. We need a major agency or institution that is interested in our
biota and ecosystems for reasons that transcend immediate economic returns or
consumptive use. It is very shortsighted of the U.S. not to recognize the importance
and practicality of knowing everything we can about our biota and ecosystems.
Many other nations have done a much better job in these areas than we have.
When you stop and think about it, it seems little short of incredible that at this
late date our biota are still taken so much for granted instead of being universally
recognized as the very basis for ecosystem health and of every renewable natural
resource on which we might someday want to make use.
Perhaps with all the media attention given lately to conservation of biological
diversity, genetic resources, etc., it will finally dawn on people that it is unwise,
improvident, and probably dangerous for us to blunder on in bliss of ignorance
about our biota. If the current groundswell denotes any real commitment, we
should seize on the opportunity to initiate a vigorous program to complete the
basic catalog of our national biotic heritage and accelerate our efforts to discover
much more about it.
In this paper, I hope to further these efforts by suggesting what I think should
comprise a national biological survey, describing an extant partial model, dis-
cussing some applications, pointing out some lessons learned, and listing some
141
142 JENKINS
currently unmet needs that a national biological survey might incorporate in its
programs.
UTILITY OF A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
We must make clear the practical applications of a national biological survey,
of which there would seem to me to be several:
1. Conservation planning. Everyone seems to be beginning to understand that
our biota and gene pools are vital resources that we must take measures to con-
serve. Next, everyone might be made to understand that we cannot identify and
design biological reserves effectively unless we know what our biota are, where
they are to be found, and what they require to live.
2. Environmental impact assessment/environmental quality regulation. Biolog-
ical aspects of environmental impact analysis and development planning could
be much enhanced by the availability of more and better organized information
such as could be produced by a well organized survey. To some extent this is the
other side of the coin from direct conservation planning, and it is just as important
in averting unnecessary destruction.
3. Cataloging genetic resources. Every projection seems to be for the rapid
evolution of U.S. industry toward dominance by the high technology fields, and
one of the most important of these is supposed to be genetic engineering. The
universities appear to be hell-bent on transforming their biology departments into
gene-splicing companies, but as yet, precious few are showing any concern for the
study or conservation of the gene pools upon which such endeavors depend.
4. Land, ecosystem, species, and natural resource management. At this point
we really know very little about the habitat and ecological requirements of in-
dividual species, much less of species assemblages or entire ecosystems, nor do
we have more than a glimmer of an idea about how they respond to our current
land management practices. Gaining knowledge in these areas is not only pertinent
to managing nature preserves, but such knowledge could undoubtedly be impor-
tant in “multiple use’’ situations. A lot of what we currently do in agriculture,
range management, etc., involves the use of unadapted exotic species and artificial
systems that are probably not performing to the level of which native species and
systems would be capable, even in productivity and economic return, much less
in terms of ecosystem stability and function.
5. Facilitating biological and ecological research. Expanding our knowledge of
our native biota and organizing that knowledge base in a more effective way than
it currently is organized in our varied and scattered repositories would greatly
assist us in learning even more. Better data organization would almost certainly
facilitate the advancement of scientific theory as well as the further accumulation
of factual information.
STRUCTURE OF A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Unproductive confusion will arise if we continue to discuss a national biological
survey without defining what we think it should be. It is evident that among the
symposium participants there are some fairly different ideas about the structure
and functions of a national biological survey. The various presentations here
contain a $100 million worth of respectable ideas, but somebody will have to
APPLICATION AND USE OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 143
decide how to get and spend the first million—on that will depend whether a
national biological survey dies aborning. Achieving success in the longer run will
be an even harder matter. In any case I can’t say what I think about a national
biological survey unless I first specify what I think it would be. I will try to
incorporate some ideas of priorities for the expenditure of the first million.
First, I would like to see an integrated national institution, not just some sort
of loose consortium. I rather liked Orie Louck’s diagram with its central coor-
dinating unit. A variety of existing institutions such as museums, universities,
- agencies, and organizations should definitely play important parts. Many on-going
efforts deserve continuation and enlarged support in this connection, but we really
need a unified central core.
Second, there seem to me to be three main operational needs:
1. An information repository with information synthesis functions. As Allan
Hirsch points out, a massive amount of biological information collection is going
on, but as Steve Edwards has often observed, it tends to be a “one-time use,
throw-away item.” We need to do a vastly better job of capturing, storing, and
organizing such information and in ways that facilitate practical use. I agree with
Nancy Morin that we will need to produce a variety of published reports from
this information, but we definitely need to generate these from easily updatable,
continuously maintained, computer databases.
2. A methodological development unit. A great many ambitious programs fail
because insufficient importance is attached to methodological development and
refinement. Particularly in an undertaking such as a national biological survey,
where standardization among so many parties must be achieved, truly superior
methods are critical. These methods can only be developed through an intensive,
continuous effort. I consider this to be an absolutely top priority undertaking for
the central staff.
3. A mechanism for research and data gathering, principally on a widely dis-
tributed, multi-institutional (but coordinated) basis. This needs to be done on an
interative basis, with limited resources allocated to a succession of reasonably
discrete tasks that can produce products or services of direct use. An early task
might be to survey other existing data collection efforts with a cold eye, to produce
a sort of data bank of data banks (the term “data bank”’ is used to denote an
assemblage of manual as well as computerized data) that would clearly identify
the relatively few such data banks that are truly valuable.
SCOPE OF A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
There is probably less difference of opinion on the scope of a national biological
survey than on its structure, but there is likely to be considerable disagreement
about relative priorities. The obvious subject matters that should be of interest
include:
Biological taxonomy. The national community of systematists is one of the
major forces pushing for a national biological survey at this time, as a vehicle for
rapidly advancing their collection activities and research to at least identify and
classify all the components of our biota. I gather that the entomologists have a
long way to go to even identify and name most of their species; other groups
clearly need major work as well. Beyond taxonomic monographs, it would be
144 JENKINS
useful to produce checklists and diagnostic keys and to characterize species and
infraspecies in a variety of ways and for various purposes.
Biogeography. Most of us would agree that we also need to obtain a much
clearer picture of our biota’s. distribution.
Species autecology and population biology. Most will probably agree that part
of the business of a national biological survey should be to find out about species
characteristics, ecological requirements, and functions.
Synecology. Classification of biological communities and research on ecosystem
functions are logical extensions of the above lines of inquiry, but they would add
much additional complexity and expense to the work of a national biological
survey. I liked Orie Louck’s figures on biome data, and they seem to fit in with
Allan Hirsch’s prescription for some EPA user needs, but both are assuming that
a national biological survey will be heavily oriented toward system ecology, and
this is probably not the way to spend the first million.
Genetic research. Most of us believe that we need to know a great deal more
about genetic diversity, its distribution through species and populations, mech-
anisms of inheritance, problems of inbreeding and outbreeding depression, genetic
aspects of minimum viable population sizes, and the importance of gene pools
in human affairs. Again, this would become much more involved and could even
lead into the entire “‘conservation biology”> agenda. Many of us consider these
lines of inquiry very important, but until a national biological survey has taken
on a more definite character, we cannot be sure that it is the best vehicle for their
advancement.
Geographic scope. It is obvious that a national biological survey would cover
all 5O states, and for jurisdictional reasons, most people would probably agree
that it should cover all U.S. territories and possessions as well. Some will argue
that it would be eminently reasonable to extend it to the rest of North America
through some form of cooperative venture with Canada and Mexico. A major
point of debate is apt to be whether a national biological survey should have an
international component beyond North America, and if so, what form it should
take.
Lastly, it occurs to me that there may be a need for some educational initiatives
to accomplish or facilitate various aspects of a national biological survey. We may
not, for example, have enough specialists in certain fields to deal adequately with
some taxonomic groups, and it may be necessary to take measures to provide
additional manpower.
STATE NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY NETWORK:
AN EXISTING BIOLOGICAL SURVEY MODEL
I addressed the Association of Systematic Collectons annual meeting on the
subject of State Natural Heritage inventories several years ago when it met at
Harvard. In 1983, the organization was kind enough to give the Conservancy its
annual Award of Excellence for this work, so for many ASC members this will
just be something of an update. I will describe the network of these programs as
constituting something of an existing national biological survey and discuss some
of the uses made of the data, some of the limitations in its scope, and what else
we would like to see developed to fill currently unmet needs. I will be addressing
APPLICATION AND USE OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 145
these matters from the perspective of The Nature Conservancy, which functions
in several relevant capacities—as a developer of data collection and management
methods, a compiler and organizer of existing information, a gatherer of new
information, a data user, and a supplier of information for the uses of others. In
these roles, we have been involved to some extent in all five of the applications
I’ve suggested as appropriate to a national biological survey (but very little so far
in genetic resource analysis at a genotypic level).
The Nature Conservancy’s entire program is directed to the preservation of
biological and ecological diversity in this country, and, increasingly, elsewhere in
the world. The Conservancy’s precursor, a special conservation committee of the
Ecological Society of America, was established in 1917. The early activities of
that committee were concentrated on the identification through surveys (or “‘in-
ventories”’) of biologically and ecologically significant “natural areas” for pres-
ervation. Along with the direct preservation and long term management of such
areas, this activity continues to the present day. In the field of biological conser-
vation, no other institution has as much experience in inventory, information
management, or application of information to decision-making as does the Con-
servancy.
Much of the early inventory activity was of only limited value for reasons that
need to be understood by anyone else contemplating similar biological surveys.
The reasons have been explained at greater length elsewhere (Jenkins, 1982), but
in summary, the main shortcomings were imprecise goals, discontinuity of effort,
overambitious scope for available resources, lack of standardized methods and
terminology, and general failure to patiently organize a disciplined effort. These
problems began to be solved in 1974 when, along with the South Carolina Wildlife
and Marine Resources Department, we launched the first “State Natural Heritage
Inventory” program.
State natural heritage programs are “‘permanent and dynamic atlases and da-
tabases on the existence, characteristics, numbers, condition, status, location, and
distribution” of biological species, natural communities, and other entities, fea-
tures, or phenomena collectively referred to as “elements of natural diversity.”
Unlike previous inventories, natural heritage inventories have none of the fatal
shortcomings listed in the last paragraph (although they could certainly benefit
from increased funding to meet their admittedly ambitious goals).
In 39 other states, as in South Carolina, state natural heritage inventories have
begun as cooperative ventures between state governments and the Conservancy,
to be carried on in the long term as units within state agencies. Cooperative
programs have also been undertaken with the Tennessee Valley Authority and
the Navajo nation. In most of the other states, such inventories are currently
being carried out by the Conservancy alone, by the state alone, or by a multi-
institutional arrangement. Thus these inventories are now collecting and organ-
izing biological information across virtually the entire nation. Collectively these
programs have annual operating budgets of over $7 million, employ over 200
biologists and information managers, and call on the knowledge and voluntary
assistance of thousands of scientists and amateur naturalists. One measure of the
extent of this effort is that these programs collectively manage information on
over 150,000 individual rare species populations and localities. Incidentally, the
146 JENKINS
Conservancy’s international arm is helping to set up quite a number of heritage
inventories in various Latin American countries, where they are usually referred
to as “Conservation Data Centers.”
For a number of reasons, the state natural heritage programs do not quite
constitute a complete national biological survey, at least with the dimensions I
proposed at the beginning of this paper, although they are generally evolving in
that direction.
The main reason that the heritage programs do not constitute a complete na-
tional biological survey is that their funding is too limited. For one thing, they
cannot afford to gather and organize information on all species, so they concentrate
most of their efforts on rare and endangered species because these are the ones
that require conservation attention. Even here they primarily focus on vertebrate
animals and vascular plants, although they do have information on a small fraction
of the invertebrates and non-vascular plants that specialists believe to be very
endangered, with rather better coverage of such popular groups as freshwater
molluscs and Lepidoptera. Even on rare vertebrates and higher plants, they can
only afford to transcribe and computerize a fraction of the information on species
biology, potential utility, etc., that the Environmental Protection Agency or the
U.S. Department of Agriculture would consider ideal for some of their purposes.
From our experience in gathering and managing information on the better
known and rarer taxa, it is obvious that to expand coverage to the rest of the
groups will only be possible with annual budgets of tens of millions of dollars.
This would be true even if the taxonomy of these taxa were already fairly well
known and we were satisfied with much more limited information on many
subjects than we currently collect on rarities. For example, we might collect and
record distribution data on abundant taxa to county-of-occurrence precision, but
no one could seriously contemplate collecting data on every known stand of white
oaks, as we have for hundreds of rare plant species. Even if we suppose that much
of the information and the infrastructure for supplying it already exists in the
universities and museums, experience suggests that just the central information
managing unit itself will need an annual budget of several million dollars, and
funding the central unit must be the first priority.
Heritage programs attempt to make up for their limited taxonomic coverage
by expending up to half their energies on classification and inventory of ecological
communities on the theory that by identifying and preserving good examples of
major terrestrial and aquatic community types, we will provide habitat for as
many as possible of the species about which we cannot afford to collect individual
information. This focus and emphasis placed on rare and endangered species are
efficiency measures, and we originally imagined that this approach would save us
the trouble of dealing with up to ninety percent of even those vertebrates and
vascular plants that are not in extreme peril. Ironically, however, since everything
is rare and endangered somewhere in its range, we eventually realized that one
or another state program was collecting information on nearly every native species
in these groups.
Moreover, even the rare species are usually found in more than one state, so
we gradually began to see advantages to centrally storing a growing body of ©
information at our national office to increase the efficiency of collection and data
APPLICATION AND USE OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 147
use by several states. Since at least some basic data existed somewhere (wherever
the species is rare) in the network for all vertebrates and higher plants, the national
databases began to be more and more comprehensive for these groups, at least
at a limited level of detail.
These central databases have brought together an array of biological information
never before assembled for the entire U.S. For example, the national databases
contain the most complete computerized checklists in existence for all U.S. ver-
tebrates (from many sources) and vascular plants (from John Kartesz’ latest un-
published synthesis). Manual files have been assembled on a large number of these
species, including all of the rarer and more endangered ones. We have comput-
erized “Element Global Tracking”’ records on 23,927 North American species or
varieties of plants (22,546 full species) and on 5,952 vertebrates (3,703 full species
including marine fishes and sea birds). In these records, all of the vertebrates and
about half of the plants have been assigned range-wide endangerment rankings
on the basis of standardized factorial analyses. In many instances, the specific
“Element Global Ranking”’ records themselves are computerized and the rest are
on manual forms. Included is such information as numbers of populations, num-
ber of individuals, etc., and these databases are being expanded every day. We
are also computerizing “Element State Tracking” records, which should shortly
give us a complete state-of-occurrence picture of known vertebrate distribution
for the U.S. At the current rate of input, however, it will be at least several years
before we will have achieved the same for vascular plants. Because there is a great
demand for information on vertebrates, we are currently expanding this part of
our national and state databases by adding 30 or 40 data fields on each species.
The Nature Conservancy has a special heritage task force in its national office
charged with maintaining this growing volume of centralized information, as well
as for developing and refining methodology, documenting standard procedures,
and training and supervising new state level staff. A basic rule for division of data
responsibility within the cooperating network is that information on individual
populations, localities, and protected areas is stored at the state level, whereas
information on generally applicable species biology eventually flows upward to
the national data bank. Additional information is managed centrally to help
maintain standardization on such matters as taxonomic classification so as to
facilitate the exchange of information, reduce confusion, and enable us to bring
data together on a regional or national basis for such things as range-wide status
analyses. This central data bank is contributing materially to increased efficiency
by reducing duplication of effort.
Lead responsibility for maintaining an overall master file on at least each in-
dividual rare species is gradually being assumed by individual state heritage staffs,
usually on obvious distributional grounds. Responsibility for other species, such
as the intrusive exotics, is being taken by Nature Conservancy stewardship staff
or outside cooperators. From these sources, the central databases are being con-
stantly refined. The updated information is shared throughout the network with
all who make a reasonable request. For the rarest species, increasing numbers of
individual populations are being monitored annually. Some of this information
is being added to the central databases as well. In addition to the state heritage
programs, the national staff, and the stewards in the regions and state offices,
148 JENKINS
heavy input to the central databases is coming from special units of the national
task force located in the Conservancy’s four regions.
USES OF THE DATA
One of the main uses of biological information from the heritage network, and
the one for which it was originally intended, is for systematically planning for in
situ conservation of biological diversity, or in other words, to identify and set
priorities among areas that should be preserved for this purpose. This is done
primarily at the state level by generating “natural diversity scorecards.” These
consist of species and community lists arranged in order of decreasing relative
endangerment, along with their existing occurrences on the landscape, a ranking
of these on the basis of quality and viability, and the further translation of this
information into specific priority sites that are for designing nature preserves. In
many states where heritage inventories are more mature, this has transformed
biological land conservation as practiced by the Conservancy and a growing num-
ber of other cooperating agencies into an objective, data-driven process. From
the point of view of endangered species, most of which are endangered in large
part by habitat destruction, this has become the most pervasive mechanism by
which they are being saved from extinction or further depletion in this country.
A second major use of the heritage data, and one which is of the utmost
importance to state governments, is to provide yardsticks for environmental im-
pact assessment and the review of potential development projects. The existence
of comparative information on so many species, communities, and localities
allows us to get at questions such as that posed by Allan Hirsch about the relative
significance of damage to a habitat or species population. The comprehensive
series of U.S. Geological Survey topographic quad maps, which every program
uses to plot actual localities of endangered species occurrences and outstanding
community remnants, provides an efficient means of identifying critical resources
that could be affected by potential developments. This is particularly important
in regard to decisions about which of two or more potential sites will be developed
for any given purpose. In cases where the proposed development cannot be re-
located away from a vulnerable site, additional heritage information about bio-
logical tolerances can be employed to recommend modifications of the project
design to mitigate environmental impacts. Prior to the time this sort of very
specific locality information became available, project reviewers had been forced
to rely on inferential guesswork. Many of the state heritage programs participate
in hundreds or even thousands of project reviews per year. In addition to averting
the destruction of important biological entities and areas, the early and definitive
application of this information helps to avoid a lot of unnecessary resource ex-
penditures and conflicts.
Another important use of heritage information is in species status review to
ascertain and document degree of endangerment. In some states (and lately, on
an aggregate multi-state basis), scores of species that were candidates for endan-
gered species listing on the basis of more or less anecdotal information have been
dismissed from further consideration after newly collected, compiled, or aggre-
gated information showed them to be much more widespread and abundant than
previously believed. Other species have been shown to be rarer than once thought.
APPLICATION AND USE OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 149
These sorts of results show how important good biological information can be in
cost-effectively allocating scarce resources. To achieve this result, however, her-
itage inventories employ concepts of incremental data accumulation and iteration
to constantly refocus information collection efforts on the next most important
thing to learn. This keeps them from becoming bogged down in impossible vol-
umes of less important data so that, for example, they can get around to such
tasks as de novo searches for new occurrences of inadequately known species. An
important lesson or two is here for whoever is to undertake an even more com-
prehensive biological survey where being buried in data will be an even larger
problem.
The same priority-setting mechanisms are allowing heritage programs to focus
on questions of importance to ecosystem management, at least in regard to natural
areas. For examples, on the one end of the species spectrum, heritage databases
focus our attention on those species that not only require habitat protection, but
also management intervention. To intervene intelligently, we need more infor-
mation about the biology of these species, their life history strategies, ecological
tolerances, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, there are some very abundant
species, such as intrusive exotics, about which natural area managers need to
know more to effectively control them. In amore comprehensive biological survey,
this sort of thing would probably be greatly expanded because of special interests
in the biology of economically important game species, crop relatives, disease
vectors, timber trees, etc. The structure of these databases brings such data needs
to the top of our priorities in the order they really merit, so that we can efficiently
focus our research efforts or persuade others to do so.
Nearly all of these applications require information at both national and state
levels. We have found that it is simply not practical to maintain current, accurate
information on individual localities or populations at the national level, nor is
there much direct use for such information at that level. Therefore, some sort of
network involving operating units at the state level is absolutely crucial to meet
the most pressing decision-making needs.
UNMET NEEDS UPON WHICH A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
MIGHT FOCUS
Hirsch, Klassen, and others have treated a number of needs within their agencies
and fields, so I am confining myself mainly to problems in the field of biological
conservation:
1. Species taxonomy. Others can speak more authoritatively on needs in this
area, but standardized taxonomy is very important to us in our survey and con-
servation work. A standardized North American Flora would be extremely helpful
to us, and although separate initiatives are being taken on this right now, it is a
logical part of a comprehensive biological survey.
2. Additional leads to endangered species of invertebrates and non-vascular
plants. We have incorporated into our existing surveys all species in these groups
that specialists have recommended, but there is an awkward chicken-and-egg
aspect to this in that the specialists need to know more about the species before
they can decide whether to consider them endangered, but we do not collect
information on these species until somebody says they are endangered. The level
150 JENKINS
of background knowledge simply needs to be elevated by whatever can be ac-
complished through a national biological survey to expand research on these
groups. I think we need to be realistic about this, however. As Barry Chernoff
showed, there is probably a point at which cricket taxonomy, distribution, etc.,
changes faster than we can hope to keep up. As far as conservation goes, we are
most apt to save populations of such things by preserving examples of ecosystems
and communities.
3. Support for more field surveys. Even with an information management sys-
tem that makes priority setting very systematic, heritage staffs are hard pressed
to conduct all of the field surveys that they need to, even just to verify earlier
records of species and community occurrences garnered from literature, museum
collections, etc. On top of that, a lot of de novo searching is required. We get
substantial help in the field from university scientists and other volunteers, but
for endangered species, time is of the essence. Increased funding for field surveys
could be a life-and-death matter for some species.
4. Support for applied research on selected species (and communities). In many
instances very little is really known about the biology and ecology of a given
species, and if it is not prospering we frequently haven’t a clue about how to
intervene in its management. Again, much of the needed research is only going
to get done in time for us to use it if a source of increased funding is identified.
5. Genetic research. There are some very pressing genetic questions of the
utmost importance to conservation decision-making that are not now being an-
swered. If these lines of inquiry are to be pursued as part of a national biological
survey, I would be particularly interested in research that could help clarify just
how important it is for us to preserve subspecies, ecotypes, or peripheral and
disjunct populations. Do these taxa characteristically have unique alleles or ir-
reproducible genetic complexes? Would their loss constitute the loss of a thousand
years of selection for local adaptations, or do these populations merely represent
trivial recent or recurrent invasions of marginal areas? At present, it seems prudent
to assume that it is important to preserve such local populations so that a large
part of our conservation resources is spent on state rare species, etc.
6. Reliable longterm funding. I have mentioned several aspects that we would
make haste to accomplish if we had a source of increased annual funding, but
from my perspective, the biggest single shortcoming of the natural heritage net-
work is the lack of reliable sources of permanent funding that could guarantee
that the cumulative body of knowledge and experience will not someday be un-
done. Therefore I agree with Stan Shetler that reliable long term funding is every-
thing. The prospect of greatest interest to me is that a national biological survey
be established as an institution with such a firm financial basis that the central
information management operations could be secure for the long term.
7. Other. There are many additional things that the users need, even just in
my own field of conservation. If the national biological survey included sufficient
funding for a substantial research effort beyond the more basic aspects mentioned
above, I would like to see it take on the whole research agenda of what some
persons are calling ‘“‘conservation biology,’ which includes questions about bio-
logical preserve size, other aspects of preserve design, minimum viable population
APPLICATION AND USE OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA 151
sizes, effects of ecosystem fragmentation, etc. I also would like to see much more
done, on a longer term and a more disciplined basis, on ecosystem research and
monitoring. This research could be partly basic, such as most of the research
being sponsored by the National Science Foundation through its Long Term
Ecological Research program, and partly applied, such as that involved in man-
agement of grassland ecosystems by use of fire. It would be very useful if some
special unit of the national biological survey were able to devote itself to the
extremely complicated and difficult questions of community and ecosystem clas-
sification, as Alan Hirsch and Christine Schonewald-Cox have suggested, since
this has been such an intractable obstacle to various aspects of conservation and
system management.
CONCLUSION
For several reasons, I have devoted much of this paper to discussing the State
Natural Heritage programs at some length, rather than taking a more disinterested
perspective. First, they are what I know the most about, and if I am to give advice
I should do so on subjects where my judgement is least apt to be mistaken. Second,
it seems to me that the network of natural heritage programs is not sufficiently
known among scientists advocating a national biological survey, or not sufficiently
appreciated, because until now it has not figured as weightily in discussions as
the facts would seem to justify. At this time, these programs collectively constitute
the closest thing to a national biological survey that exists and as such should
serve as a relevant model to be examined, a possible foundation upon which to
build, or at least a contributing part of the grander survey we all hope will ensue.
As for exactly where the heritage data network fits into a more comprehensive
effort, we feel quite flexible and open to suggestions. The Nature Conservancy
intends to fully cooperate with any intelligent plan, even one in which the heritage
operations would be wholly absorbed. Just as we have transferred full control of
individual state heritage programs to the state governments, which are better able
to afford their long term support, we have always been prepared to hand over our
national task force functions to a more muscular long term sponsor. However,
we began to do this once before with the late Heritage Conservaton and Recreation
Service, and if we are to try again, we would like to be sure of the viability and
soundness of the new management unit.
This said, I sincerely hope that the current initiative will lead to the establish-
ment of an institution capable of a much larger program of biological survey and
information management, including the full range of associated genetic and eco-
logical research work. However, the reasons why such an institution has not
already been established still persist as impediments to the current effort. If such
a thing is to be accomplished, it will take a much more cohesive effort from the
community of biologists, speaking with a more united voice, than we are used to
seeing when such matters are brought to public attention. In doing this, it will be
important for us to make one thing clear—that although biologists are calling for
a biological survey, this is not just special pleading. Most of us are not calling for
more biological knowledge because we are in the business; instead, we entered
the business because we saw the need for more biological knowledge.
152 JENKINS
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continue to explore the complex issues involved in creating a national bio-
logical survey in a disciplined manner. This could involve establishing an
advisory or planning committee, finding an independent body to study des-
ignated facets under contract, and holding a series of workshops to involve a
wide array of interested parties.
2. Specific issues to be studied include the following:
a. Optimal structure and scope of a national biological survey.
b. Review of current activities and institutions and their possible contribu-
tions.
c. Examination of national biological surveys in other countries as possible
models.
d. Previous attempts to establish new programs or institutions of a related
nature, both successful (e.g., National Center for Atmospheric Research) and
unsuccessful (e.g., National Institute of Ecology), to identify positives and
negatives that might be applicable to the current undertaking.
3. It may also be useful to explore the attitudes and opinions of a wide spectrum
of individuals in Congress, federal and state government agencies, the non-
profit sector, and possibly in business to discover probable support or resistance |
to the idea of a biological survey, and specific suggestions for its establishment.
4. Several related initiatives being considered at this time are receiving high level
attention, mainly concerning the need for greatly expanded efforts in the con-
servation of domestic and international biological diversity. The relationship
of these matters to a possible national biological survey should be explored to
avoid duplication or collision between these ideas and the actions that might
result.
5. Considerable thought should be devoted to questions of budget levels and
sources of funding. There would be little value in attempting to conduct a
national biological survey on a shoestring budget, and since a biological survey
needs to be a permanent activity and not just a short term project, reliable
annual funding is crucial. If I have not explicitly said so yet, this means to me
that realistically the national biological survey must be a government insti-
tution or one with permanent government funding.
6. The sections of this paper on structure, scope, functions, and current users’
needs constitute additional specific recommendations in themselves. In par-
ticular, I think that the existing State Natural Heritage network should be
explored as a model, a possible foundation, or at least a contributing part of
a more complete national biological survey.
LITERATURE CITED
Jenkins, R. E., Jr. 1982. Planning and developing natural heritage protection programs. Presented
at the Indo-U.S. Workshop on the Conservation and Management of Biological Diversity in
Bangalore, India. Copies available from The Nature Conservancy.
Jenkins, R. E., Jr. 1984. An example from America. Naturopa 48: 10-11.
The Nature Conservancy. Unpublished. Natural heritage program operations manual. About 400 p.
Not distributed, but available for inspection at Nature Conservancy and state natural heritage
offices.
ADP Technological Perspectives
of Biological Survey Systems
' H. Edward Kennedy
Maureen C. Kelly
BioSciences Information Service (BIOSIS)
Abstract: Given the characteristics and magnitude of a national biological
survey, it is essential that provision be made for managing the large volume
of information that has been and will be collected. The value of the survey
will depend in part on the availability and usefulness of the information col-
lected. This paper reviews some of the short and long term technological de-
velopments that might impact on the capture, storage, manipulation, and use
of biological survey data. Recommendations are given for the development of
a “referral data base’? as the mechanism for coordinating the data collection
and data management aspects of the survey. Also recommended is the estab-
lishment of a central agency for the registration of organism names.
Keywords: Information-handling, Data Management, Technology, Referral
Data Base, Optical Disks, CD-ROM Disks, Microcomputers, Telecommuni-
cations, Networks.
INTRODUCTION
This paper reviews some of the short and long term technological developments
that might impact on the capture, storage, manipulation, and use of biological
survey data. The review was conducted from the perspective of a user of data
processing hardware and software. Our employer, BIOSIS, is a not-for-profit
company, which abstracts and indexes biological information and makes it avail-
able to users in printed and computer-readable form. Over the past 30 years,
computers have become a critical component of our production operations.
Because we represent a user of technology, we are familiar with the problems
as well as the advantages of computerization. We have learned to take with a
grain of salt the glowing promises of advertisers. For these reasons, we have taken
a somewhat conservative approach in preparing this paper. After all, we would
not want to be guilty of perpetuating any of the fallacies Dr. Shetler so clearly
identified for us in his 1974 paper on ‘“‘Demythologizing Biological Data Banking.”
Still, we hope that you find new opportunities for information management in
some of the technological advances we will describe.
The task of conducting a national biological survey involves many practical
problems in information handling. Given the characteristics and magnitude of a
national survey, it is essential that provision be made for managing the large
153
154 KENNEDY AND KELLY
volume of information that has been and will be collected. The value of such a
survey will depend, in part, on the availability and usefulness of the information
—collected.
Over the past 30 years, advances in computer technology have had a significant
impact on the way in which we capture, storé, manipulate, and distribute biological
information. Few would question that these changes will continue, most likely at
an accelerated rate. And because the use of new technology inevitably lags behind
its development, many, if not most, of the changes we will see in the next five
years will result from technology already developed or under development.
We have attempted to pull together highlights of the technology, both existing
and under development, which, in our view, could facilitate the management of
information collected by a national biological survey. Of necessity, much will be
left unsaid or will be dealt with in a cursory manner. For convenience, we have
chosen to organize the technology into four categories— technology that facilitates:
I. Information Capture
II. Information Storage
III. Information Processing
IV. Information Use
(Be assured that there is nothing hard and fast about these four categories; many
technological developments could easily be discussed in more than one category.)
I. INFORMATION CAPTURE
In the area of information capture, significant technological advances have been
made in recent years. The 80-column punched card, so common in the past, is
becoming an endangered species today.
Data capture for a national biological survey brings with it a variety of require-
ments. Of particular interest are technologies that provide for direct capture of
data in the field as well as those that enable existing, printed data to be incorporated
into the new data collection.
In the past, the closest one could get to direct capture of data in the field was
to have the researcher encode his findings on “‘mark-sense”’ forms that would later
be optically scanned. This remains a cost-effective approach to collecting encoded
data, and it is being used in France to collect data on the distribution of French
flora and fauna.
However, a great many more options now exist for capturing data at its source,
largely as a result of microcomputer technology. In just the last five years, micros
have come down in price and size to the point where it is now feasible to use
them in the field. Handheld computers, derived from the high-end, alpha-numeric
calculators, are the fastest growing segment of the portable computer industry.
Advances in flat-screen technology and improvements in battery power sources
are expected to yield significant improvements in briefcase-size computers.
Equipped with such specialized user interfaces as a voice translator, light pen,
scratch pad, a ““mouse’’, or a touch-sensitive screen, microcomputers are becoming
increasingly user-friendly. Technology that supports voice input and output is so
practical that limited versions can even be found in toys. Computers are now
available that can synthesize speech and/or respond to verbal instruction.
ADP TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 155
Data captured on a micro can be stored on non-volatile media such as floppy
disks or transmitted directly to a host computer over a telephone or via radio
signals. It is expected that before 1990 a commercial system will be available that
will let people communicate with distant computers via satellite by use of a small
pocket transceiver.
The capture and integration of existing data presents a different set of problems.
Much of the existing data is available in printed form only, either as books, catalog
cards, or field notes. Advances in optical-character-recognition technology now
make it possible to scan material printed in a wide range of type fonts and convert
it into digital form. In particular, the Kurzweil scanner can recognize thousands
of combinations of typefaces and type sizes in a wide variety of page formats. It
digitizes documents up to 25 times faster than keyboard operators and accom-
plishes its conversions with surprising accuracy and flexibility.
In some cases, it may be necessary to create a digital record of an “image,” as
in the case of pictures, drawings, and occasionally text. New technology is being
developed in this area also. Companies such as IBM, Wang, and Microtek are
beginning to market products that can scan and digitize anything on a piece of
paper. Once digitized, the image is stored on a microcomputer disk from which
it can be manipulated by use of special software. In combination with telecom-
munications equipment, the image can even be transmitted to other locations in
the same fashion as facsimile. Although this technology provides many useful
opportunities for capturing graphic material, it should be understood that storage
requirements for images are high. An 8-1/2 x 11-inch image requires about 500
thousand bytes (500K) of disk storage (when digitized at 200 pixels per inch).
II. INFORMATION STORAGE
Information storage technology is probably the area of greatest interest to those
responsible for managing the information generated by a national biological sur-
vey. Developments in storage technology over the past 20 years have been dra-
matic. The key areas where major developments are now taking place are: magnetic
storage, optical disks, and combination technologies.
Magnetic Storage
In magnetic media, data are recorded by repeated polarization of tiny areas
along the surface of the medium. The orientation of the poles is used to indicate
a “0” or “1.” Storage capacity is affected by the size of the area polarized and by
how closely together these areas can be packed.
The density of magnetic storage is limited, to a large extent, by the mechanical
requirements associated with reading and writing the data. Advances continue to
be made that reduce the size of the read/write heads and to allow them to operate
closer to the magnetic surface. The use of special thin films and metallic coatings
on disks have reduced head-to-surface distances. Improvements have also been
accomplished by hermetically sealing the disk and the read/write head in a single
enclosure (as in the popular Winchester technology). By getting the head closer
to the disk, without actually touching it, it becomes possible to pack the bits of
data closer together, thereby increasing the density of storage. The storage density
of hard disks has increased from about 250 bytes (or characters)-per-square-inch
156 KENNEDY AND KELLY
in 1956 to nearly 2 million characters-per-square-inch today. Even floppy disk
technology, with its limiting mechanical requirements, can achieve densities of
nearly a million characters-per-square-inch.
Another new technology, predicted to bring 50-to-100 fold increases in magnetic
storage densities, is perpendicular magnetic recording. In a traditional magnetic
medium, one can envision each of the bits of data as a tiny bar magnet aligned
longitudinally in a plane with the surface of the medium. In perpendicular mag-
netic recording, the bar magnets can be imagined as standing on end, perpendicular
to the surface of the medium. This orientation allows more bits of data to be
packed into a given area. Recording densities of over 35 million bytes (or char-
acters)-per-square-inch are predicted by 1990, allowing a 14-inch, four-platter
magnetic disk to hold 5 Gigabytes (or 5 billion characters) of data.
Optical Storage
Despite the prospects for improvements in magnetic storage devices, the greatest
excitement is currently being generated by optical disk technology. Whereas mag-
netic technology is limited by a number of physical constraints, optical technology
seems to be limited only by the wavelength of light.
Optical disks typically store data as a series of spots on a light- or temperature-
sensitive medium. The technology has grown out of that developed for the home-
entertainment market. Both the video disks used for movies and the compact
disks used for sound recordings have been adapted to store digitized information
compactly and comparatively inexpensively.
““Optical-Video Disc” is the name given to computer storage adapted from
home video technology. It can be used to store digital or analog information either
separately or in combination. Players for these disks are now being marketed to
operate in conjunction with microcomputers.
Production of optical-video disks constitutes a type of publication process
wherein a master disk is made and then replicated to produce copies. The tech-
nology is ideal for preparing multiple copies of archival data. The life span of
such optically recorded information is projected at more than 40 years. Optical-
video disks running 12 inches in size are now being marketed with storage ca-
pacities of 2 Gigabytes (or roughly 2 billion characters).
“Compact Disc” is the name given to the audio version of this technology.
When adapted for information storage, it is often referred to as ““CD-ROM” or
““Compact-Disc/Read-Only-Memory.” These small disks are only 4.7 inches square
and hold 5-600 Megabytes of data. It has been reported that IBM is developing
a 2-inch version for software distribution.
Both the optical-video and compact disks are read-only storage media. Infor-
mation is digitized onto a master disk and then replicated for distribution. A
separate technology, called the ““Optical-Digital Disc,” is designed to allow data
to be recorded on demand without being mastered and replicated. Recording is
accomplished by a laser beam that burns pits into a special film sandwiched
between two layers of Plexiglas. Once written, the disk can be read immediately.
Data can be added to the disk at any time, but it cannot be erased. _
The optical-digital disk offers impressive storage capacities. The “Direct-Read-
After-Write” or “DRAW?” disk developed by North American Philips Co. can
ADP TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 137
store roughly a billion bytes of error-corrected data. A “DRAW” system currently
available from Alcatel/Thomson offers 12-inch disks with a capacity of 2 Giga-
bytes. Projections have been made regarding the development of “‘juke boxes”
containing 10,000 disks with a total capacity of 25,000 Gigabytes.
Combination Technologies
The three optical storage technologies we have been describing are suited for
permanent storage, since data cannot be erased. This is advantageous in many
applications. However, if optical technology is to compete directly with magnetic
storage devices, erasable optical disks must be developed. Present efforts in this
direction fall mainly into two categories. The first makes use of amorphous ma-
terials that change their state in reaction to light. Some materials are polarized
by light; others change color. The second category of erasable, optical storage
media combines magnetic and optical technologies. Here, heat from a focused
laser beam is used to impose a magnetic orientation. This information can then
be read by a polarized laser beam. Information stored in this fashion can later be
erased and rerecorded.
New developments in the areas of optical and magnetic storage technology
continue to improve overall storage capacity, reduce costs, and add flexibility to
the way in which computers can be used. In practice, advances in storage tech-
nology have also been a driving force that stimulates development in other areas
of computer technology.
III. INFORMATION PROCESSING
Major advances have also taken place in the technology that facilitates infor-
mation processing and manipulation. Key areas of hardware development include
30-fold gains in processing speed; major increases in reliability; dramatic reduc-
tions in equipment size and price; and improvements in display resolution and
graphics capabilities. Software developments have also been significant, including
high level programming languages; powerful computer operating systems; versatile
data base structures and management systems to support them; user-friendly
software interfaces; and the new expert systems that begin to make use of artificial
intelligence.
Of all these improvements, we think that the ones which affect microcomputer
hardware and software may well have the most impact on information manage-
ment to predict that microcomputer technology will soon be as ubiquitous as the
telephone.
New data base management systems for micros, as well as for mainframes, are
beginning to make use of relational models for data storage and retrieval. This
approach is particularly well suited to the type of data likely to be collected in a
national biological survey because it will allow multiple descriptors to be asso-
ciated with multiple entries in the data base in a table-like arrangement. Admit-
tedly, much of this work is still in its early stages, and most DBMSs are not yet
truly relational, despite their advertising. Still, the technology is already having
an impact, and there is every reason to expect that progress will continue.
158 KENNEDY AND KELLY
IV. INFORMATION USE
The ability to use technologies in combination has also added flexibility to the
ways in which data can be retrieved from a computer system and put to use.
Technological developments of interest here include: telecommunications; net-
working; distributed and gateway systems; search software and front-end systems
for retrieval; photocomposition software and hardware; and laser printing (to
name just a few).
The field of telecommunications is one of the fastest growing areas in the
information industry. This growth has been spurred by developments in several
areas. For example, advances in fiber optics technology promise to bring improved
efficiency and lowered costs to information transfer. By use of laser light and a
bundle of glass strands no thicker than a finger, it is possible to transmit simul-
taneously over 240,000 telephone conversations. This technology shows promise
for accurate transmission of computer data over long distances.
Satellite technology is also being used to reduce the cost of long distance trans-
missions. It has even been speculated that the data banks themselves might be
put into satellites in geostationary orbits. This is not likely to happen tomorrow;
but, who knows, perhaps someday your portable computer will come equipped
with an antenna instead of a modem.
Getting back to the present, satellites, fiber optics, and other advances in te-
lecommunications technology make it increasingly practical to build distributed
data bases that can be accessed and maintained remotely by use of networks and
gateway systems. With the aid of special “‘front-end”’ software to facilitate access,
the fact that the data resides on different computers becomes almost transparent
to the user. Data can be searched and/or modified remotely, or it can be copied
and saved for future use locally.
Telecommunications developments facilitate the use of data in printed as well
as computer-readable form. Microcomputers coupled with optical scanning de-
vices can be used to transmit printed images to remote locations. Other develop-
ments that facilitate the use of printed output include laser printing technology,
photocomposition formatting software, and graphics terminals and printers.
CONCLUSION
We have been asked to include in our talk some mention of future trends in
computer technology. Of course it is easy to cite the obvious, such as continued
increases in speed and capacity paired with reductions in size and price. But our
crystal ball has never been particularly reliable, so we decided to look back over
the past for lessons that might apply to projecting the future.
In looking back over the last 10-20 years, we were reminded that, despite the
truly amazing developments in technology, it was the human element that played
the major role in determining the rate at which new technology was implemented.
For many years computers tended to be large and hostile devices, locked away
under the charge of an elite group of professionals. It was not until they came
down to a more human scale that we began to see a proliferation of computer
usage and applications.
Today, computer hardware and software are becoming truly user-friendly. Over
the next 5-10 years, we expect to see continued development in those areas that
ADP TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES [59
make computers more accessible to the end user. We also expect to see increased
use of distributed systems. Dramatic improvements in processing power are being
made on microcomputers as well as on mainframes. Of course it is true that
advances in storage technology make it possible to build ever larger data bases
in a central location. However, these same advances also make it possible to
distribute copies of the data base to end users. And the same telecommunications
technology that makes it possible to access a large centralized data base also
facilitates access to smaller, distributed data bases.
Based on our understanding of current technology and our expectations for the
future, we would like to conclude with recommendations for managing the in-
formation that will be generated by a national biological survey.
It should come as no surprise at this point that our recommendations involve
a distributed information system. We acknowledge that a single centralized data
store would be a much more powerful information resource than a distributed
information system; however, the centralized approach also brings with it tre-
mendous burdens for data capture, conversion, storage, and processing, to say
nothing of the massive administrative and maintenance responsibilities associated
with such an undertaking.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that consideration be given to adopting the
concept of a “referral data base” as the mechanism for coordinating the data
management aspects of the survey. A referral data base is just what its name
implies. Rather than collecting all the data in one place, the referral data base
‘refers’ you to data available elsewhere. Under this concept a data base would be
built that describes and indexes a variety of data collections available in other
locations. We are sure each of you is familiar with several existing data collections
that might be included. We would expect literature data bases, such as those
produced by BIOSIS, to be documented in the referral data base as a source of
published information on organisms.
While the data collections themselves need not be standardized, the descriptions
and indexing included in the referral data base would be standardized. A model
for this concept can be found in the National Environmental Referral Service
(NEDRES) operated by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion). Access to the distributed data collections might ultimately be provided via
computer network.
In addition to recommending the development of a referral data base, we would
also recommend the establishment of a central agency for the registration of
organism names. This would facilitate access to the data associated with each
organism and would enhance the reliability of data retrieval. This approach is
already in wide use in the field of chemistry, and a mechanism for registering
organism names has been under development at BIOSIS for several years.
In conclusion, we would like to say that technology today offers us a great many
options for managing the information associated with a national biological survey.
We believe that if we remain conservative in our approach and energetic in our
execution, the technology is certainly available to support such an undertaking.
160 KENNEDY AND KELLY
LITERATURE CITED
Allkin, R. 1984. Handling taxonomic descriptions by computer. Jn: The Systematics Association
Special Vol. 26: Databases in systematics. Academic Press, London and Orlando.
Anonymous. (undated) Finding the environmental data you need: NEDRES (National Environmental
Referral Service). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC.
Anonymous. 1984. Special report: Laser disc storage systems. [DP Report 3-6, November 23, 1984.
Anonymous. 1985. Briefcase size personal computer to dominate the portable computer market.
Information Hotline p. 10, May 1985.
Anonymous. 1985. Kodak image management system. [nformation Hotline 8-9, May 1985.
Anonymous. 1985. New disk developments: power promises for PCs. PC Magazine 33-34, February
19, 1985.
Anonymous. 1985. The future of personal computer communication. Business Computer Digest and
Software Review 3(5): 1-2.
Anonymous. 1985. $1000 image scanner stores photos, text on PC disk. Electronic Engineering
Times p. 17, April 11, 1985.
Barron, D. W. 1984. Current database design—the user’s view. In: The Systematics Association
Special Vol. 26: Databases in systematics. Academic Press, London and Orlando.
Beaver, J. E. 1984. New options for data crunching. Computer Decisions 159-164, 168.
Bisby, F. A. 1984. Information services in taxonomy. Jn: The Systematics Association Special Vol.
26: Databases in systematics. Academic Press, London and Orlando.
Dadd, M. N. & M. C. Kelly. 1984. A concept for a machine-readable taxonomic reference file. In:
The Systematics Association Special Vol. 26: Databases in systematics. Academic Press, London
and Orlando.
Freeston, M. W. 1984. The implementation of databases on small computers. Jn: The Systematics
Association Special Vol. 26: Databases in systematics. Academic Press, London and Orlando.
Goldstein, C. M. 1984. Computer-based information storage technologies. Annu. Rev. of Inf. Sci.
Technol. 19: 65-96.
Helm, L., J. W. Wilson & O. Port. 1985. Are U.S. chipmakers’ worst nightmares coming true?
Business Week 84a.
Kelly, M. C. & J. M. Walat. 1984. 1984 and beyond: The impact of new technology on information
processing and distribution. Presented at Council of Biology Editors Annual Meeting, Rosslyn,
Virginia.
Kolata, G. 1985. Changing bits into magnetic blips. Science 227: 932-933.
Paller, A. 1985. The ten top graphics trends for ‘85. Computer World Focus 19(15A).
Secretariat de la faune et de la flore. 1983. Objectifs et fonctionnement; methodologie et deontologie;
programmes et publications. Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, ISBN 2-86515-012-
6.
Semilof, M. 1985. 2,400 bit/sec modems. On Communications 2(5).
Shaefer, M. T. 1984. Leading-edge, high technology information devices examined by national
agricultural library. Information Retrieval and Library Automation. 20(7): 1-4.
Shetler, S.G. 1974. Demythologizing biological data banking. Taxon 23: 71-100.
Williams, B. J. S. 1985. Document delivery and reproduction survey. FID News Bulletin 35(1): 8-
LA.
SECTION IV.
LEGISLATIVE AND
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
FOR A NATIONAL
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
a: paPBE cia
=) a Se na a a
; hover +t ex 23, eg a ‘ae
rls shen i PANG ce
ne Hg '
i ¥
F
'
" cna A : <
hh ve seiebse:
Se " Pte me cy : of ae
{Sie i Deion iohoniait ak, eke
are ee siete Brew saaadouty
billie r -
; yo?)
HK ' ne
| epeern' th. sae Bar
: ps ee Fe Ml ae im cae es aks Sth Be :
ray ; 7 i ‘ibe ns * i : : , i rh 2 4 ” 7
ie wi wi ; +, nines | " aay nae ae j i 5 . adel € | i. P ee Naf, Th “ j 1 - P
SS Sere | a Parc. nee they de> ae le ORS ned Oe oa
ih } vee ate a ee . ae A eee rr na ; “hh bi ’
: L ‘ A! 2a pu 1 oo i. i hy aa mele LL WA it i, ss hes ' as bi ‘ " . ‘
‘, crm TS ment ita ete se er See a ada Re lath
P oo PS a ls Sal Par a an Miter oo au ee Se
feai 7 Cine), * w W Nias AB 8 in Ve 8 : EY beg Pee ids aT he ip
y At ths th apa set Yi te ay one er ae" aN i bi FN ii iz ne Og VHT be Ths il = “oy fi
i/ ead hs Mick eR ath es, ih yoKs ye 2
Maki ahaioaake if “i il na mar! p ode |
ROE oe as i go a andl ke ta RL AE A tay Th bad atl tahe Geant
| ; t , yy i , re! al ao oa ay a wail Aap t We iby ni . §, SEAS, aN - fi
Then MEW ane TOME cL Mie (OS AU I wae eae yan if, Pi mas BD) iy
Niles i dt . i a, _ ; vce 1 * 4 7 a an i eee wl aL 7 a “aa
fet hee aA NS ii ea Hak ’ a ' wry
4 ; : LAL "ee gl a 4" *,
‘ , ‘ ae me # ; - 1 Tiel ie. ae i : #) 5 ih: ve
| 7 : Ful, ae per ine peagn Seats
' ‘i ' Ay hy iw vi Al aa of pa A "
. Fal | | % aH Pilsner, Coty oa : Bath mye i
i Soloed ala io wont i! eae aie au ae i ; : Mi: ini: ; BP. a ee i Pe \ y
Ms : ni ny i A" Ne ie : TT F 1 1 i is Sieh Lu ee ye ve tri
‘ ' 4 : nen pI N i re Ge, Fe Fa Fp) ore, iy te . wr ss any | ha hal ee * it a
an vee ke OME tk ie. vi is ia a? an) ae Bae So ie
ree 7: aver pesy BS Ar Ba a hal a tas fs rae vibe Se) et * ia ies BARS i Ree
Me ae vet ; he * os 7) oe a Reirhay 5 on ided . i ee
iw ye = 5 2 ] yuan ite jy ie) Dt Gale ‘ay muy ” ha es a ead Bitetrig? Sie
ihn : oom ; 7 ; : ter iy
Ler i fae nt Me up ( _
Bi, oe Tae
i, ‘ a ii Pali 7
i Ay ms Nhe
b : yy “a a [ W Say,
Prefatory Comments
Stephen R. Edwards
Association of Systematics Collections
There is no doubt that our federal government (both legislative and executive
branches) and most, if not all, of the states have made considerable investment
of funds and personnel toward gaining a better understanding of the flora and
fauna of this nation.
At the federal level, a number of statutes have been promulgated that directly
reference, or allude to, the broad need to conserve, understand, and document
our nation’s flora and fauna. These laws include: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lacey
(=Injurious Wildlife) Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection
Act, Bald Eagle Protection Act, Fur Seal Act, Plant Quarantine Regulations,
Noxious Weed Act, and the Animal Welfare Act. Under these federal laws over
3,000 genera and/or species of plants and animals are listed as needing special
treatment.
In addition, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy
Act require all federal agencies to evaluate the “impact” of their programs on the
environment and expressly prevents them from destroying specific listed habitats
and species listed as “endangered.”
At the state level, while only five states (Illinois, Kansas, New York, Ohio, and
Oklahoma) have established biological survey programs, most states have enacted
legislation designed to protect their fauna and flora. In the aggregate, over 2,500
different genera and species of animals alone are listed by the states.
It is important to note that not all federal and state legislation is designed to
protect listed species. In some cases, undesirable or ‘“‘pest” species are listed to
prevent their introduction into the U.S. ora particular state. Nevertheless, whether
a listing is designed to protect or exclude a species, there is no doubt that effective
management of the species is dependent upon our understanding of the organism’s
distribution, reproductive biology, environmental requirements, etc. In the ab-
sence of such basic information, we are required to make decisions on the basis
of educated guesses.
In addition to these publicly supported programs, an estimated 70% of the
3,800 biological collections maintained in this country are housed in tax-supported
institutions. Further, nearly 200 million biological specimens and accompanying
data are maintained in these 3,800 collections. Each of these collections was
established to preserve, document, and communicate information about species.
If 25-30% of these specimens represent native (U.S.) species, a significant resource
163
164 EDWARDS
(of between 50 and 60 million specimens) exists upon which we could further
document the flora and fauna of this country.
This very brief overview of federal and state investments in acquiring species-
related information documents a need and commitment for an integrated bio-
logical survey of this nation. Data are being compiled on species. Specimens are
being collected and housed in museum collections. Therefore, why do we need
to formalize a national biological survey?
Simply, the information that has been acquired is not accessible, and the ac-
tivities I have outlined are not coordinated; therefore, the products of these ac-
tivities are not available. Most often, government programs and biological col-
lections are established for special purposes, designed and implemented to serve
the interests of only a relatively few individuals—and one would have to question
whether the public is considered a priori as a beneficiary.
To emphasize my point, I will examine the government programs and collec-
tion-related activities of which Iam aware from the perspective of two parameters:
Information Management and Financial Resources.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Dating back to the late 1960’s, with the establishment of such federal programs
as the International Biological Program (IBP) and Man and the Biosphere (MABS),
and through the response of federal agencies to the National Environmental Policy
Act, it became clear that a crucial element necessary for management of biological
information was a listing of species. Such listings would provide a means by which
a vast array of species-related information (e.g., locality from which the specimens
were obtained, ages, reproductive conditions) could be associated, stored, and
retrieved. In this manner, the data associated with a variety of specimens (from
different localities) of a given species could be pooled, analyzed, and interpreted.
This need led to the development of computerized systems expressly designed to
store and manage biological data.
To date, Iam aware of no fewer than 12 federal agencies, services, offices, and/
or projects that have either developed their own computer-based, species-oriented,
information management system or have developed extensive computerized list-
ings of groups of taxa for use in conjunction with software available on their
systems. These are: Office of Endangered Species, (Washington D.C.), National
Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Soil Conservation Service, Eastern
Energy Land Use Team (United States Department of Interior); Forest Service
(United States Department of Agriculture); Environmental Protection Agency;
National Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce); Department of
Navy, Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense); National Laboratories (De-
partment of Energy); and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The magnitude of the financial investment in these computer systems from
these federal programs must be staggering when one considers the costs of per-
sonnel, computer hardware, software, space, and support facilities. And yet, the
majority of these systems have either been abandoned or fall far short of per-
forming the tasks for which they were developed.
PREFATORY COMMENTS 165
Why Have the Majority of These Systems Failed?
I believe that one of the most important factors that has contributed to these
failures is the fact that the professional systematics community was (and remains)
isolated from such projects.
Given that these information management systems are developed to provide
data on species according to their names, if different users employ different sci-
entific names for the same species, then they will receive different answers.
Taxonomy is dynamic, probably changing at a rate of 5% per annum. Nomen-
clatural changes are communicated primarily through publications with very lim-
ited distribution designed to serve professionals working on a particular group of
organisms. Finally, most qualified systematists have a relatively narrow spectrum
of taxonomic expertise; therefore, it is impractical to think that each agency in
the government could employ a sufficient number of qualified personnel to mon-
itor taxonomic changes for all flora and fauna. In short, it is imposible for any
comprehensive taxonomic listing to be kept up-to-date without the active partic-
ipation of the professional community.
From the perspective of collections, only 21% of the specimen-related infor-
mation in the U.S. is managed by use of computers. Of these collections, on the
average, only data on 40% of the specimens are accessible by computer. Fur-
thermore, only 64% of all specimens in collections have been cataloged in any
manner. Less than one-half person-years is devoted to curating each collection
(based on the total number of individuals associated with collections and adjusted
according to the percentage of time devoted to curating the collection). Over 40%
of the personnel associated with collections are volunteers or students. The average
operating budget for a collection in the U.S. in 1981 was slightly over $5,600.
Given these conditions, it is not surprising that data on existing specimens are
generally not available—particularly in any organized form designed to meet a
public need.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Contrary to popular belief, considerable federal and state funds have been
available to underwrite biological survey activities. According to Escherich and
McManus (1983. Sources of Federal Funding for Biological Research. Association
of Systematics Collections, 83 pages), a total of 34 federal agencies (independent
of the National Science Foundation) provided nearly $3.5 billion for biological
research in 1982. Because agencies were unable to provide data on support avail-
able for systematics research, the authors compiled their data on programs that
substantially supported “‘organismic biology.” The National Science Foundation
(Biological Research Resources and Systematic Biology Programs) awarded ap-
proximately $3.5 million for floral and faunal surveys between 1980 and 1982.
From a different perspective, between 1977 and 1982, systematic biologists
reported receiving a total of $165 million in grant/contract awards from all sources
including federal programs, state and local government agencies, and private
sources (Edwards et al., The Systematics Community. 1985. Association of Sys-
tematics Collections. 274 pages). An average grant recipient received about $24,000
166 EDWARDS
per year over this five-year period. Further, systematic biologists report that about
50% of their research activities are supported with personal funds.
With these facts in mind, it is clear to me that the federal and state governments,
as well as the private sector, have already made a significant commitment (con-
ceptually, financially, and in their actions) toward a national biological survey.
What stands between our present condition and formal implementation of a
national biological survey is a dedication of financial resources (including new
funding if it is determined necessary) and coordination of existing federal, state,
and private informational resources and activities toward the common goal of
surveying our Nation’s flora and fauna.
Federal Legislation and
Historical Perspectives
on a National
Biological Survey
Michael J. Bean
Environmental Defense Fund
Abstract: This paper examines some of the federal laws and programs that
either require biological survey-type undertakings or that would be significantly
aided by such efforts. Also recounted are some of the historical efforts of federal
agencies to undertake biological surveys or establish networks of protected
areas for ecological research on federal lands.
Keywords: Federal Legislation, Historical Perspectives, Biological Survey.
INTRODUCTION
Though the term “biological survey” apparently implies somewhat different
things to the many different people who use it, the one common characteristic in
most definitions is the comprehensive identification and description of all the
biota ofa region. There is currently no federal legislation requiring that a “national
biological survey” of the U.S. be undertaken. Nevertheless, some of the purposes
that such a survey might serve can probably be substantially achieved through a
variety of existing laws enacted primarily for other purposes.
Historically, the conservation of living resources has been the responsibility
primarily of the states rather than the federal government. The federal conser-
vation role still remains rather limited, focusing mainly on migratory birds, marine
mammals, and endangered species; the states, though in theory responsible for
everything else, have concentrated even more narrowly on game species. More
recently, the assertion of a federal interest in preserving general environmental
quality—as opposed to specific living resources—has given the federal government
a new set of responsibilities for which biological survey data could be of major
value. This paper reviews the history of the first biological survey efforts of the
federal government, then examines some of the current legislation upon which a
survey could be built today.
HISTORY
For nearly half a century, there was within the federal government an agency
known at various times as the Division or Bureau of Biological Survey. The
167°
168 BEAN
agency’s origins can be traced to an 1885 congressional appropriation of $5,000
to the Department of Agriculture’s Division of Entomology “for the promotion
of economic ornithology, or the study of the interrelations of birds and agricul-
ture.”’ (Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 353, 354). The next year, Congress sought
to expand and perpetuate that effort by creating a Division of Economic Orni-
thology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Dr. C. Hart Merriam
of the American Ornithologists’ Union became the first Chief of the new Division,
which was charged with investigating “the food-habits, distribution, and migra-
tions of North American birds and mammals in relation to agriculture, horticul-
ture, and forestry.” (Act of June 30, 1886, 24 Stat. 100, 101). A decade later,
both the name and statutory duties of the agency were broadened; it became the
“Division of Biological Survey’’ and was given a general charge to carry out
“biological investigations, including the geographic distribution and migration of
animals, birds, and plants.’ (Act of April 25, 1896, 29 Stat. 99, 100).
The 1896 expansion of the agency’s statutory duties only codified what the
agency had in fact already been doing, for by that time it had commenced major
collecting efforts not just for birds and mammals, but also for reptiles and am-
phibians in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. Major scientific
surveys had been completed or were in progress in many of the western states,
Alaska, Canada, and Mexico by the turn of the century.
The early years of the new century were transitional ones for the agency. In
1905, its name was changed again to the Bureau of Biological Survey. More
importantly, it acquired new duties to aid in the enforcement of state wildlife
laws (1900), manage the first components of what would become the National
Wildlife Refuge System (1903), conserve migratory birds (1907), and control
predatory and noxious animals (1909). These new duties quickly transformed the
major mission of the agency from conducting survey-oriented research to active
management of living resources and their habitats. In 1939, an executive reor-
ganization transferred the agency to the Department of the Interior, where in the
following year it was merged with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (transferred
from the Commerce Department) to become the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
By World War II, statewide faunal survey work had ceased, though the Fish and
Wildlife Service was at least partially responsible for the production of three recent
state surveys: “Mammals of Maryland” (Paradiso, 1969), ““The Bird Life of Texas”
(Oberholser, 1974), and ‘““Mammals of New Mexico” (Findley et al., 1975).
The extensive collections that were begun during the early surveys are now
under the curatorial care and management of the “‘Biological Survey Section” of
the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Denver Wildlife Research Center. They are in the
National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. With a staff of only
16 and an annual budget of some $700,000, today’s ““Biological Survey Section’”’
has been called “‘a struggling, dispirited bureaucratic waif far from the center of
power.” (Rensberger, 1985).
CURRENT LEGISLATION
To date, there has been no public policy, clearly embodied in any federal statute,
to carry out a general biological survey of the nation. However, more limited and
specific surveys or survey-like undertakings have often been essential to the proper
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 169
carrying out of other policies. Thus, a variety of federal agencies, operating under
different statutory mandates, can carry out significant pieces of a biological survey.
Together, their efforts, if properly directed, could contribute a substantial share
of a national survey effort.
1. NEPA and Related Laws
The single most pervasive and influential federal environmental law of the
modern era is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.). It applies to all federal agencies and affects the way in which each of them
does its business. NEPA articulates several major policy goals, among them to
“preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage,
and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and
variety of individual choice.” (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(4)) The principal means by
which this goal is to be served is to require each federal agency to prepare a
“detailed statement’ (Commonly known as an environmental impact statement)
for each major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
These statements are to describe “the environmental impact of the proposed
action”’ and its alternatives. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C))
The effective realization of the goals set forth in NEPA would clearly require
a substantial body of baseline environmental information like that which a bio-
logical survey could provide. In practice, however, the process of preparing an
environmental impact statement rarely begins with anything like a comprehensive
biological survey. The reason is that NEPA’s command to describe the environ-
mental impact of a proposed action has been qualified, by administrative and
judicial interpretation, to limit that duty to “important” impacts. ‘Importance’,
in turn, can most readily be discerned by reference to those federal and state laws
expressing some clear public policy relating to living resources. Thus, to the extent
that NEPA impact statements address impacts on specific living resources, they
almost always concentrate on migratory birds, endangered species, marine mam-
mals, and commercially or recreationally valued fish and wildlife, precisely be-
cause these are the types of living resources for which clear public policies have
been developed and expressed in state and federal conservation legislation. In
short, a comprehensive survey of the tiger beetle fauna in the area of a proposed
major federal development is simply not likely to be viewed as necessary, absent
some endangered species or other clear public policy consideration. Thus, NEPA
as a tool with which to build a national biological survey is not likely to be very
effective. |
The same general observation can be made with respect to a number of other
federal laws that, like NEPA, try to influence development decisions by ensuring
that those who make such decisions are fully informed as to the environmental
consequences of their decisions. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661 et seg.) is the oldest and one of the most important of these. It was
originally passed in 1934 in response to the destruction of valuable anadromous
fishery resources as a result of the damming of rivers, and had among its limited
purposes encouraging the construction of fish ladders to aid those resources. As
subsequently amended, it seeks to ensure that “‘wildlife conservation...receive
equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource
170 BEAN
development programs,”’ including the permit programs for the filling of wetlands
and the discharge of pollutants into water under the Clean Water Act. (16 U.S.C.
661). The mechanism through which the Act works is consultation between the
federal resource development or permitting agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and its state-level counterparts.
Once again, in practice, the focus of attention in the actual implementation of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is not on tiger beetles, caddisflies, or
flatworms. Rather, it is on game fish, migratory waterfowl, furbearers, and en-
dangered species. Indeed, the typical currency by which the impacts of proposed
actions are measured under the Coordination Act are “hunter-days”’ or “‘angler-
days.”
To some extent this narrow focus of concern under NEPA, the Coordination
Act, and similar laws may be broadened as a result of the growth of nongame
conservation programs at the state and federal levels. In 1980 Congress passed a
law to encourage states to develop conservation programs for wildlife not hunted
or caught for commercial purposes. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of
1980, as it was called, was to have provided federal funding in support of such
state programs. (16 U.S.C. 2901 et seg.) To date, no federal funds have been
appropriated, although a number of states have nevertheless established active
nongame conservation programs funded entirely with state revenues. The federal
law requires that state programs, to qualify for federal financial assistance, “‘pro-
vide for an inventory of the nongame fish and wildlife...that are...valued for
ecological, educational, esthetic, cultural, recreational, economic, or scientific ben-
efits by the public.” (16 U.S.C. 2903)
One survey-like activity that has grown out of the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act and the migratory bird conservation programs of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is the undertaking by the Service of a revised “‘National Wetlands
Inventory.” The first such inventory was completed in 1954, and the revision
began two decades later. Still some years from completion, the purpose of this
effort is to classify wetland types and identify their distribution and extent. The
National Wetlands Inventory does not attempt to be a comprehensive “biological
survey” of each wetland area or type. However, the Service’s Office of Biological
Services has prepared ‘“‘community profiles” for wetland areas, including New
England high salt marshes, southern California coastal salt marshes, and south
Florida mangrove swamps, atlases of coastal waterbird colonies for the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Alaskan coasts, and a myriad of other similar ecological studies have
been undertaken by that Office’s ““Coastal Ecosystems Project.” Similar ecological
studies pertaining to areas likely to be most affected by coal development have
been undertaken by that Office’s Eastern and Western Energy and Land Use
Teams.
2. Federal Land Management Legislation
Most federal land managing agencies, including such major agencies as the U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish
and Wildlife Service, are subject to resource inventory requirements for the lands
under their jurisdiction. Together, these lands comprise nearly a third of the total
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES LT
land area of the U.S., although their geographic distribution is heavily skewed to
the West.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, successor agency to the old Bureau of
Biological Survey, is responsible for administering the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The Refuge System is one of four major federal land-management sys-
tems. It is the only one that has as its paramount purpose the conservation of
living resources. Congress has not clearly articulated a detailed statement of pur-
poses for the Refuge System, but others, both within and outside the Service,
have often expressed the view that it should eventually encompass representative
samples of all the major ecosystem types or life zones in the U.S., so as to provide
protected habitat for most, if not all, of the native vertebrate species and for many
invertebrates. Nothing in the federal laws pertaining to the Refuge System requires
that the Service carry out any type of biological survey, yet doing so would clearly
aid the purposes described above.
In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, three other major federal
land systems exist for which the governing laws may be relevant to any national
biological survey effort. These are the National Park System, administered by the
National Park Service of the Department of the Interior; the National Forest
System, administered by the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture;
and the National Resource Lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment of the Department of the Interior. The first of these is managed to conserve
nature and provide public recreation. The latter two are managed for “multiple
use”’ purposes that, though they include conservation, have traditionally empha-
sized commodity production.
Both of the multiple-use land systems are managed under federal statutes that
require the preparation and periodic revision of “resource inventories”. The Na-
tional Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to ‘develop
and maintain on a continuing basis a comprehensive and appropriately detailed
inventory of all National Forest System lands and renewable resources”. The
limitation of this mandate to “renewable resources”’ suggests that only those living
things with some commercial or recreational use might be included within the
scope of the inventory. Though the very clear emphasis of the inventory work
done to date has been precisely on such species, it has not excluded others, such
as invertebrates that are protected as threatened or endangered by federal or state
law, and those “known or likely to be particularly sensitive to the management
of’ Forest Service lands (U.S. Forest Service, 1980, p. 165).
The Federal Land Management and Policy Act, the basic federal legislation
governing the management of lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management, has a similar inventory requirement. That statute requires BLM to
maintain an inventory of its lands and “‘their resource and other values...giving
priority to areas of critical environmental concern”. The idea of an “‘area of critical
environmental concern” or ‘““ACEC” was a new statutory concept intended to
embrace areas “where special management attention is required to protect ...im-
portant...fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes’’.
ACECs are linked to a much earlier effort by federal land-managing agencies
to identify and protect areas under their jurisdiction with particular ecological or
research value. In 1927, the Forest Service established the first of what was to
172 BEAN
become an extensive, informally connected system of “‘research natural areas”’.
In the following decade, the Park Service established 28 similar “research re-
serves” in ten national parks. Later, the Park Service took the lead in advocating
a coordinated effort among all federal land-managing agencies to inventory and
protect those areas under their jurisdiction that had either representative or unique
characteristics of value for research or educational purposes. That effort was aided
by a 1965 “Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of
Natural Beauty’’, in which President Johnson directed that a study be undertaken
“to recommend the best way in which the federal government may direct efforts
to advancing our scientific understanding of natural plant and animal communities
and their interaction with man and his activities.” The following year the Federal
Committee on Research Natural Areas was formed (The Nature Conservancy,
1977). |
The Federal Committee on Research Natural Areas was an informal, admin-
istratively created committee comprised principally of representatives of federal
land-managing agencies. It had no statutory mandate, no appropriated funds, and
no staff. Its purpose was to encourage the development of a system of specially
designated and protected research and education areas. At first, the intention was
to allow natural ecological processes to govern in such areas. Later, the system
added areas where experimental, manipulative management was to be carried
out. The name of the committee evolved as well. In 1974, the committee was
renamed the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves. It formally adopted and
published a charter by which it announced its objectives, which included expan-
sion of the existing system to include additional federal lands as well as state,
local, and private lands, and developing guidelines and criteria for management
of the areas of the system. In 1977, the Committee published a comprehensive |
directory of federal research natural areas that included nearly 400 areas totalling
more than four million acres (Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, 1977).
Though still other areas were added later, by 1980 the Committee was moribund.
It last met in December 1979, but has not been formally disbanded. The special
areas it helped establish continue.
3. The Federal Endangered Species Program
In most federal conservation and environmental laws, biological survey-type
information would be valuable primarily for its utility in furthering the conser-
vation goals that pertain to a relatively few species, among them migratory birds,
marine mammals, and commercially and recreationally valued wildlife. The most
significant exception to this rule is the federal Endangered Species Act. Admin-
istered principally by the Fish and Wildlife Service (the National Marine Fisheries
Service of the Commerce Department is responsible for marine organisms), the
Endangered Species Act is probably most directly relevant to renewed concern
for a national biological survey because of its geographic and taxonomic scope.
Its purpose is to provide a program for the conservation of all species — vertebrate,
invertebrate, and plant—that are now threatened with extinction or are likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. The Act is noteworthy, among other
reasons, because it reaches beyond vertebrates and commercially valuable shell-
fish; virtually no earlier federal conservation law did so (Bean, 1983).
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 173
To identify and protect those species eligible for protection under the Act, some
reasonable systematic method of inventorying and assessing the status of plants
and animals is essential. Because very little was known about the conservation
status of plants when the Act was passed in 1973, the Act directed the Smithsonian
Institution to carry out a special study to identify plants that might need protection
under the Act. The Smithsonian study, completed in 1975, identified roughly
3,000 species of vascular plants from the U.S. that appeared to be in jeopardy of
extinction (Smithsonian Institution, 1975).
The comprehensive effort that the Smithsonian study represented provided a
model for a later review by the Fish and Wildlife Service itself of about 400 species
of vertebrates (in 1982) and 1,000 species of invertebrates (in 1984) that it be-
lieved, on the basis of literature reviews and information from professionals in
the field, might warrant the Act’s protection. From these three separate reviews,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has refined a current list of about 3,000 species that
it regards as active “‘candidates”’ for future listing. In practice, whenever a new
species, particularly a vertebrate, is described, it has a good chance of becoming
a candidate for future listing. The fact that it has been undescribed heretofore is
often indicative of its limited distribution or numbers.
The Endangered Species Act confers protection only on those species that have
actually been listed as threatened or endangered, of which there are currently
about 350 from the U.S. “Candidate species’ receive no legal protection; indeed,
the very concept of candidates was an administrative invention of the Fish and
Wildlife Service rather than a statutory creation of Congress. Nevertheless, the
Act provides some important opportunities to gather additional information about
the distribution, abundance, and general conservation status of these species. The
Fish and Wildlife Service itself, because it has the candidate species under active
consideration for future listing, endeavors continuously to gather new data about
them so as to expedite their listing and protection if their conservaton status
declines or to remove them from the candidate lists if they prove to be less
imperiled than originally thought. Because of perceived deficiencies in that effort,
Congress is currently considering, and is likely to enact, amendments that would
establish a statutorily mandated monitoring program for candidate species.
Another means the Act provides to gather information about the distribution,
abundance, and status of candidate species is through cooperation with, and
financial incentives to, the states. One of the principal purposes of the Endangered
Species Act was to stimulate active state programs for the conservation of species
other than the game animals and furbearers that had long been the almost exclusive
preoccupation of most state wildlife conservation agencies. The mechanism en-
abling this is Section 6 of the Act, which offers partial federal financial assistance
to those states that establish conservation programs meeting certain minimum
federal standards. Among the requirements for states seeking to qualify for such
assistance is that they be “‘authorized to conduct investigations to determine the
status and requirements for survival of resident species” of plants or animals.
Currently, more than forty states have established qualified programs for wildlife
and nearly twenty for plants. Although the amount of federal funds available to
aid in the implementation of state programs is small (currently about $5 million
annually), one of the frequent purposes for which such funds are supplied to
174 BEAN
conduct status surveys of some or all of the candidate species in the state. Congres-
sional interest is currently quite high in bolstering the cooperative programs en-
couraged by Section 6. Despite the general restraints on spending currently pre-
vailing in Congress, the House of Representatives this year voted to double the
spending ceiling that currently applies to federal support for state endangered
species programs, up to $12 million annually.
Federal agencies other than the Fish and Wildlife Service also may need to
carry out extensive survey work as a result of the Endangered Species Act. Section
7 of the Act imposes a significant and enforceable (through citizen lawsuits) duty
on all federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize or carry out do not
jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. For
most federal projects, the inital step in compliance with that duty is for the federal
agency proposing the project to conduct a “biological assessment”’ to identify any
listed species that is likely to be affected by the project. Such biological assessments
typically involve on-the-ground surveys in the area of the proposed project for
not only listed species but also for candidate species. The results are reported to
the Fish and Wildlife Service, which uses them to evaluate the proposed project
and to refine its evaluation of the conservation status of the species.
In these various ways, the Endangered Species Act provides opportunities to
gather a substantial amount of survey-like information about the significant num-
ber of rare plant and animal species. Though conducting a biological survey is
not explicitly mandated by the Act, effectively achieving the Act’s purposes cannot
be accomplished without a comparable undertaking.
CONCLUSION
The various species conservation laws, land management statutes, and other
environmental laws of the federal government provide a framework upon which
a concerted biological survey effort could be built. The one law that clearly has
the conservation of biological diversity as its central aim, the Endangered Species
Act, has thus far lacked the resources to carry out successfully its fundamental
purpose. However, the work done under that Act, and in particular the identifi-
cation of a large number of plants and animals in the U.S. that are legally un-
protected but nevertheless in peril of extinction, provides an opportunity for other
agencies administering other programs to coordinate those programs with the
Endangered Species Program in ways that would both substantially aid the con-
servation of biological diversity and achieve many of the purposes of a national
biological survey.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Dr. A. L. Gardner of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
his suggestions concerning the historical section of this chapter.
LITERATURE CITED
Bean, M. 1983. The evolution of national wildlife law. Second Edition. Praeger, New York. 449 p.
Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves. 1977. A directory of research natural areas on federal
lands of the United States of America. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC. 280 p.
Findley, J. S., A. H. Harris, D. E. Wilson, & C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, xxii + 360 p.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES eg
Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, 2 volumes, xxviii
+ 1069 p.
Paradiso, J. L. 1969. Mammals of Maryland. North American Fauna, No. 66, iv + 193 p.
Rensberger, B. 1985. Biological survey an orphan at 100. The Washington Post, July 1, 1985, p.
A3.
Smithsonian Institution. 1975. Report on endangered and threatened plant species of the United
States, H. R. Doc. No. 94-51, 94th Cong., Ist Sess.
The Nature Conservancy. 1977. Preserving our natural heritage. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC. 323 p.
United States Forest Service. 1980. An Assessment of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the
United States. Washington, DC. 631 p.
ee ae
fins ie sig rifiaaat Batty. |
(ES carat
_—
cores.
r ae
—_ |
Se
= Ful
=
iy fil piddrmentel.
ad whe aebeattl a
i
rf PAN }
re Pe
2
bs
;, ee 4
rs 1
7
r
4 bo 7
pease tel
, : .
% 1
4 ¥
j
F
Pe
" i al
;
¢ : } *h
a (
* 04
: vu
- Daas.) j
a
Lu -
“a : f
ay
'
ef ?
“ ig
% ;
} i} *
YT A .
BR 00 ose Name ities
‘ : : ee a
a“ }
’ , ‘ oi
hey .
4 : 3
f i 7 |
~s \
‘ . | |
‘
- el
‘
| C
if in
4
y :
J ie |
7 ’
; } f *
‘ iy | |
7 La! 4 i ,
} : t a:
’ \
is be
‘
ae :
‘
' . |
& |
4 | |
.
State and Private
Legislative and
Historical Perspectives,
with Comments on
the Formation of
a National Biological Survey
Paul G. Risser
Illinois Natural History Survey
Abstract: There are five active state biological surveys today, though other
states have had or are planning biological surveys. In those states currently
without biological surveys, frequently some or all of the survey functions are
distributed among several state agencies. A number of private organizations
also contribute to the functions of biological surveys, but rarely at a compre-
hensive national scale. This paper summarizes the functions of existing state
and private organizations that contribute to biological survey activities, and
then specifies 12 expectations of a national biological survey. Finally, a four-
step process is recommended for defining and implementing a national bio-
logical survey.
Keywords: Species Inventory, Habitat Inventory, Collections, Synthetic Pub-
lications, Information Clearinghouse, Plan.
INTRODUCTION
Considerable effort has been expended toward biological survey activities at
the state level, although the resulting continuing programs are quite diverse among
the various states. This effort has been exerted by state and private organizations,
frequently operating in concert, but the preponderance of activity has come from
State agencies and institutions. In the following text, I will examine the types of
programs developed by state and private organizations, evaluate ways in which
these activities could be enhanced by implementation of a national survey, ways
in which these activities could contribute to a national survey and, finally, pose
specific recommendations about the formulation of a national biological survey.
STATE ORGANIZATIONS
Though there are notable exceptions, most states do not have organized bio-
logical surveys (National Wildlife Federation, 1984; The Nature Conservancy,
bie
178 RISSER
1977). Illinois, Kansas, New York, Ohio, and Oklahoma have active biological
surveys today, and other states, e.g., Wisconsin, have had active biological surveys
in the past. The existing state biological surveys have broad mandates to study
and report on the flora and fauna of the state, but in all cases, major emphases
have been on conducting inventories of species and habitats, building and main-
taining biological collections, producing monographic and synthetic publications,
providing management recommendations, predicting consequences of human and
natural disturbances, and generally operating as a clearinghouse for data and as
a central location for obtaining advice and information. Except where state bio-
logical surveys exist, several agencies within one state may participate in some
or all of these activities.
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
In addition to private colleges and universities, a number of private organi-
zations participate in activities related to a biological survey. These can be con-
veniently categorized into three types of organizations. The most conspicuous
include those private organizations that seek to preserve habitats, such as The
Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy not only protects habitats, it also main-
tains a large data base on species occurrences in various states and summarizes
this information at the national level. The Heritage Programs of the Conservancy
now operate in 35 states and comprehensively organize information on species
and habitats. A second category of private organizations is that of research in-
stitutions, frequently associated with special reserves. Examples include the Tall
Timbers Research Station in Florida and the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation
in Illinois. These institutions support research on their own property or via mon-
etary support for specific projects. The third type consists of a diverse group of
organizations whose general objective is to enhance environmental quality, in this
case by supporting inventories, habitat acquisition, or stimulation of policies that
ensure high quality habitat and maximum biological diversity. Examples of the
latter include the Audubon Society and ad hoc groups formed to address local
issues or proposed projects.
Except for The Nature Conservancy and perhaps some conservation groups
such as Ducks Unlimited, most biological survey programs conducted or spon-
sored by private organizations are not designed to be consistent among states.
Moreover, these programs frequently focus on a single issue and do not attempt
to examine biological resources comprehensively over long time frames within
political or regional boundaries. |
EVALUATION OF STATE AND PRIVATE BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
To evaluate the objectives and programs of state and private biological survey
efforts, I have chosen to use the six fundamental activities of existing state bio-
logical surveys (Risser, 1984).
1. Conducting Inventories of Species and Habitats
Most of this activity is performed by state or private colleges and universities,
though under these circumstances there is usually no long-term master plan. Some
museums maintain field inventory programs, though these are customarily focused
STATE & PRIVATE LEGISLATIVE & HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Ve)
on certain taxa and in certain areas. Many game and fish departments also in-
ventory species and habitats, and with the advent of non-game species programs,
these inventories have begun to involve a wide variety of species, although the —
emphasis is still on game species. Many states have a natural resources agency
that maintains biological inventories, although the inventories are usually general
and may not include the actual data.
2. Building and Maintaining Collections
Though there are a few private collections, most collections of biological spec-
imens are housed in colleges, universities, and city or county agencies. Support
for these collections comes from state sources, which are frequently supplemented
by external research or environmental evaluation funding.
3. Producing Monographic and Synthetic Publications
Monographic and synthetic publications are usually produced by faculty as-
sociated with colleges and universities or by scientists working in museums or
biological surveys. State agencies frequently publish descriptions of biological
resources, but these are usually general and at the layperson level.
4. Providing Management Recommendations
Recommendations about how to manage biological resources are made by state
biological surveys but most often by game and fish departments and natural
resource agencies. Colleges and universities may contribute to this role, but these
recommendations are usually the result of a specific study.
5. Predicting Consequences of Human and Natural Disturbances
Environmental evaluations are conducted by several private and state organi-
zations. Faculty at colleges and universities participate in this activity, both as
consultants to private firms and as participants in programs sponsored by state
agencies. Some private consulting firms maintain data bases, but this information
is usually secondary in nature. Evaluation of natural disturbances is usually an
academic process conducted in colleges and universities. Museums contribute to
the evaluation process by supplying information from current and past collections.
6. Acting as a Clearinghouse for Information and a Center for Advice
The clearinghouse role is fragmented in most states. Even for large, well- funded
collections, obtaining summarized information is difficult. State agencies usually
have a specific range of topics under their jurisdiction, so the user must com-
municate with several sources to find required information about a range of
biological resources. Furthermore, this information is usually not compatible in
format, duration, or quality. Other than The Nature Conservancy, private organ-
izations do not generally serve an information clearinghouse function.
EXPECTATIONS OF A STATE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Only five state biological surveys are active, though the same functions are
frequently performed by several agencies in other states. Even the existing state
biological surveys differ in scope and size. Thus, summarization of expectations
180 RISSER
of a state biological survey demands the examination of many state agencies and,
to a smaller extent, private organizations. In brief and generalized form, organized
state biological surveys would be expected to perform the following roles, perhaps
in conjunction with other state agencies and institutions.
1. Act as a focal point to bring biological resource issues to the attention of
the public and decision makers.
2. Maintain collections of biological specimens and constantly assess the status
of species in the state.
3. Identify and document alarming trends or sudden changes in species pop-
ulation numbers and geographic or habitat distributions.
4. Encourage scientists and interested lay people to investigate and understand
the state’s biological diversity.
5. Establish priorities for research and management programs aimed at the
biological resources of the state.
6. Provide biological information to be used in refining and employing en-
vironmental quality indicators.
7. Provide comparative information on species and ecosystems so that local
and state entities can assess the value of their biological resources.
8. Provide specific products such as lists of experts, species distributions,
ecosystem processes, identification manuals, taxonomic and ecologic data,
data indices and summaries, and scientific and public information publi-
cations.
9. Provide information for responding to legal mandates such as habitat pro-
tection, resource inventories, and threatened and endangered species.
10. Train students and provide a repository for the results of research.
11. Provide information to the industry-business community to increase their
appreciation of the value of biological resources and processes.
12. Act as a central clearinghouse of information and advice to increase the
efficiency of communication and the quality of decisions about the state’s
biological resources.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
AND A NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
The listed expectations of state biological surveys are many of the expectations
that should be realized by a national biological survey. Thus, except for the
coordination role necessary at the national level, 50 active state biological surveys
could contribute the essence of a national biological survey. That is, in the dis-
persed mode, a national biological survey could consist of active state biological
surveys and an information coordination function that would permit the address-
ing of issues at the national level. Both federal and state funding would be necessary
to develop state surveys throughout the country, and federal funding would be
required for the national coordination activities.
A national biological survey is additionally necessary if the state surveys are to
influence decision-making at the national level. That is, national priorities and
policies usually depend upon a comprehensive assessment from several or all
states. This can be accomplished only by a nationally coordinated effort. On the
STATE & PRIVATE LEGISLATIVE & HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 181
other hand, the value or jeopardy ofa state’s biological resources can be evaluated
only in the context of the nation, so a national survey is necessary if the full
potential of the state biological surveys is to be realized. To be certain of long-
term stability, state biological surveys require a core of consistent state funding.
Part of these state programs can be maintained by research funding from various
sources. However, the fundamental objective of biological surveys is to maintain
long-term records and collections—activities that are not amenable to project-
by-project funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In formulating recommendations, it is important to recognize several funda-
mental issues. First, a national biological survey would relate to many existing
organizations. Though this paper considers state and private agencies, several
federal agencies also contribute to the substance of a national biological survey.
Thus, formulation of a national organization immediately precipitates some con-
cern about the possible impacts on existing organizations. Second, the prevailing
national budget climate is not particularly conducive to increased funding of
widely visible programs, especially as compared to social support programs. Third,
the concept of centralization is regarded with suspicion by many individuals and
organizations. So, there are many unresolved basic considerations, such as whether
a survey would be a loose amalgamation of existing organizations, an entirely
new cabinet-level department, or an added responsibility for an existing organi-
zation. Fourth, the magnitude of the task of conducting a national biological survey
would seem so large that the basic feasibility would be questioned by some. Fifth,
the establishment of a national survey will require successful political persuasion.
This is an activity in which the biological community has not demonstrated
consistent accomplishments.
Establishing a national biological survey is an important endeavor that, because
of the above issues, could easily become disorderly and unsuccessful. The ultimate
organization must ensure that the expertise and data are closely associated but
that there is sufficient national coherence to obtain the benefits of a nationwide
program. Rapid, unplanned initiatives will undoubtedly produce sufficient adverse
reactions so as to jeopardize the process and, therefore, the ultimate benefits.
Thus, I believe that the scientific community should invest a year or two in
planning the orderly development of a national biological survey. My own notion
is that a national biological survey should build on the existing organizations and
institutions but develop enough central structure to coordinate information. Fur-
thermore, the task is large and important; ergo, substantial money and effort
should be devoted to such a national biological survey. However, there are a
plethora of possible scenarios, and these should be thoughtfully considered by the
scientific community.
Specifically, I recommend the following procedure:
1. That a planning-steering committee be established, perhaps as proposed by
the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
2. That the steering committee accomplish the following tasks:
A. Articulate a tentative set of objectives for a national survey.
182 RISSER
B. Organize a series of workshops to address the status of current activities
related to a national survey, evaluation of amounts and quality of existing
data and collections, data management, potential users of the program,
organizational structure; and an agenda for a national congress.
C. That a national congress be conducted on the basis of deliberations of the
workshops. This congress would include a representative group of parti-
cipants and users and would be expected to produce a clear mandate
supportable by the scientific and user community.
3. That a plan of action be developed from the products of the workshop, to
include an organizational structure and a strategy for obtaining the necessary
political support.
4. That the national biological survey be implemented.
LITERATURE CITED
National Wildlife Federation. 1984. Conservation directory, 1984. 29th Edition. Washington, DC.
297pp.
The Nature Conservancy. 1977. Preserving our natural heritage. Volume II. State activities. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. 671 pp.
Risser, P.G. 1984. Illinois Natural History Survey Annual Report. Highlights of 1983-1984. Illinois
Natural History Survey. Champaign, IL. 35pp.
SECTION V.
INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVES
Mine
eirti.
OL ol The WOFANGON, 40,
chtanuna the cceeaery:
t ry
iat thet utnaw
ia
Prefatory Comments
Lloyd Knutson
Biosystematics and
Beneficial Insects Institute
Ke Chung Kim
The Pennsylvania State University
An enterprise as important as a national biological survey has international
significance and relationships, just as most “‘national’’ collections are of inter-
national consequence. In addition to a biological survey’s linkages with different
disciplines, institutions, and other national endeavors, this symposium also con-
sidered linkages of a U.S. biological survey with other geographical areas and with
other countries. We were fortunate in having at the symposium key persons who
are extensively involved in biological survey activities in other countries: Peter
B. Bridgewater, Australia; Hugh V. Danks, Canada; and José M. Sarukhan, Mex-
ico.
What are the international relationships? First of all, species do not, of course,
respect political boundaries. A biological survey of the U.S. will involve many
species that also occur in Canada, Mexico, and other countries. The geographical
distributional facts of life mean that a U.S. national biological survey will be
fundamentally related to survey activities and systematics research in other coun-
tries, particularly Canada and Mexico.
Not only is almost any “national” survey, perforce, a part of “international”
survey activities, but also the limited taxonomic expertise in any one country
demands a high degree of international cooperation. There are taxonomic spe-
cialists in various countries with unique expertise in the plants and animals whose
distributions include the U.S., and that expertise may be lacking in the U.S.
Hopefully, such expertise can be brought to bear on a U.S. national biological
survey.
There are various successful models in other countries for a national biological
survey. As a biological survey is developed in the U.S., we need to learn from
these models. Both the planning experience and experiences in conducting a na-
tional biological survey in other countries will be useful to the U.S. For example,
it is interesting to note, in the case of both the Canadian and Australian surveys
described in subsequent chapters, the close ties with ecological and environmental
interests and the nature of these surveys as primarily initiators and supporters of
survey work, rather than being institutions directly conducting survey activities.
185
186 KNUTSON AND KIM
The kinds of taxonomic studies that will provide the range of needed infor-
mation are best conducted on a regional or worldwide basis, covering the entire
geographical range of the taxon. A U.S. national biological survey will best be
served by such comprehensive monographs and revisions with sound classifica-
tions. Obviously, development of this kind of research is enhanced by strong
international linkages.
One of the major unresolved issues facing a U.S. survey is the survey’s rela-
tionship to the strong interest in and need for work in the tropics. Emphasis on
a U.S. survey should not, need not, detract from work in the tropics. Both are
highly significant scientific and societal needs. Although the rate of loss of biotic
diversity is faster in the tropics than in the temperate regions, thus arguing for a
certain priority, the impact of biotic loss due to demographic and environmental
causes 1s immediate to our daily lives in temperate areas. Major areas in both
regions appear doomed, and biological surveys in both temperate and tropical
areas have a high parallel priority. An exchange of letters in regard to the Central
American insect fauna (Janzen, 1985; Adams, 1985; Miller, 1986) points up the
needs for work on the tropical fauna and the potential relationships with a bio-
logical survey in the U.S.
As planning for a U.S. survey proceeds, the broad range of international con-
cerns and experience will need to be considered. The increasingly broadened
international perspective of the Association of Systematics Collections (typified,
for example, by the nature of the Association’s 1986 annual meeting) should prove
useful. The enhanced value of activities conducted on an international scale were
perceptively analyzed by Stuessy (1984). We are, in fact, seeing the value of a
broader, international perspective in areas such as biosystematic services in ento-
mology, where an International Advisory Council, recently formed as a result of
a symposium at the XVIIth (1984) International Congress of Entomology (Kim,
in press), is beginning to bear fruit.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, R. McC. 1984. Letter to D. H. Janzen, in Commentary. Degradation of tropical forests: a
dialogue. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 31: 12-13.
Kim, K. C. In press. International Advisory Council for Biosystematics Servies in Entomology. Jn:
L. Knutson, K. M. Harris, and L. M. Smith (eds.) Biosystematic Services in entomology. Pro-
ceedings of a symposium held at the XVIIth International Congress of Entomology, Hamburg,
Federal Republic of Germany, August 20-26, 1984. Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric.
Janzen, D. H. 1984. Letter to R. M. Adams in Commentary. Degradation of tropical forests: a
dialogue. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 31: 10-12.
Miller, D. R. 1986. Letter in Commentary. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer.
Stuessy, R. F. 1984. The organizational development of the systematic biology community. ASC
Newsletter 12: 49-53.
The Australian
Biological Resources Study:
1973-1985
P. B. Bridgewater
Australia Bureau of Flora and Fauna
Abstract: Since 1973, the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) has
improved taxonomic and ecological knowledge of plant and animal distribution
through provision of a grants program and through development of national
databases and publications. Institutions in states and territories are the major
source of taxonomic activity, which ABRS has integrated into a national frame-
work. Data available suggest a 50% increase in taxonomic productivity since
the inception of ABRS.
Apart from species catalogues, floras, and faunas, ABRS is helping develop
a series of databases that will be available as a national source of information
on the taxonomy and distribution of Australian biota. Part of that program
includes the development of techniques to use such data in active conservation
and land management.
Keywords: Australia, Floras, Faunas, Databases, Species Mapping, Vegeta-
tion Mapping, Catalogues.
INTRODUCTION
Unlike most institutions that maintain collections, the Australian Biological
Resources Study (ABRS) has no statutory obligation to collect and curate—rather
it is an organization charged with answering the questions:
—What sort of animals and plants do we have in Australia?
—Where are these animals and plants found?
Clearly answers to these questions are of enormous importance and interest to
conservation and land use managers. Indeed, it is true to say that without adequate
answers to those questions, any land management or conservation decisions are
likely to be less than fully effective. The role of the ABRS then, is to provide the
structure necessary for continued improvement to the sciences of taxonomy,
biogeography, and descriptive ecology, as one element in the development of
sound conservation strategies. This point is well emphasized in the Australian
National Conservation Strategy (1984), where, under the heading of Priority Na-
tional Actions, Research, the following are listed:
a. Strengthen research efforts to improve knowledge of the different life support
187
188
BRIDGEWATER
systems, of their capability for being used for different purposes and of the
management required to sustain their capability for those uses.
. Improve national coordination of environmental research so that effort is
better directed toward agreed priorities, duplication is avoided and adequate
communication exists between research agencies.
. Improve taxonomic and ecological knowledge of plant and animal species
and their distribution, impacts and interrelationships.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ABRS
Goals of the ABRS, reflecting Government policy in this area, are to:
A
Coordinate all work aimed at collecting, describing and classifying Australian
plants and animals and determining their distributions (including vegetation
mapping) and to maintain liaison with international bodies engaged in sim-
ilar activities.
. Establish priorities for taxonomic and biogeographic research to facilitate
regular publication of a systematic series of flora and fauna handbooks.
. Develop a national biological resource information system.
. Maintain information on and evaluations of Commonwealth taxonomic
collections.
Given the federal system of government in Australia, ABRS is a cooperative
exercise aimed at coordinating, into a national framework, the major efforts
made by state institutions. Particular ABRS objectives at present are to:
. Promote the writing and publishing of Flora of Australia. This 50-60 volume
work will be the first national Flora for over 100 years and the first to be
written in Australia. The Flora is already widely recognized nationally and
internationally as a significant reference work and a major aid to the iden-
tification of Australian flora. Two volumes per year are published now.
Appendix 1 shows some sample text from published volumes.
. Promote the writing and publishing of a 10-volume Fauna of Australia, to
provide comprehensive information on the identification of Australia’s fau-
na. Volume 1 (General Articles and Mammalia) is currently being written,
with contributions from over 100 authors. This work complements the Zoo-
logical Catalogue of Australia, which will comprise approximately 70 vol-
umes dealing with the taxonomy of Australian fauna at the species level.
The Zoological Catalogue will also be accessible as a regularly updated on-
line database. Appendix 2 shows sample text from published volumes dealing
with vertebrates and invertebrates.
Develop a database system for distributional and taxonomic specimen data
held by Australian museums and herbaria [known as the Australian Bio-
geographic Information System (ABIS)]. Occasional publications will be pro-
duced from this database. In preparation at present is an atlas of elapid
(front-fanged) snakes in Australia and an atlas of Australian mangroves.
Figure 1 shows a distribution map for the mangrove species Aegiceras cor-
niculatum. This system also includes the mapping of Australia’s vegetation.
Devise methodology to use ABIS in planning and co-ordinating biological
surveys, environmental sampling, and land management.
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY 189
Fig. 1. Distribution of Aegiceras corniculatum in Australia. The * indicates each site from which
a specimen has been collected.
5. Improve and increase the output of taxonomic research and documentation
in Australia by means of a Participatory Program. This Program calls for
applications each year from taxonomic and biogeographic researchers. Each
year certain “Preferred Objectives”’ are advertised, which relate to research,
writing, and data compilation necessary to achieve the other ABRS objec-
tives outlined above. A register of Australian and overseas workers interested
in Australian biota is maintained, and directories are published from time
to time. Statistics suggest that the taxonomic output, in terms of publications,
has increased by 50% since the inception of ABRS.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY
The genesis of ABRS was in 1973, when an interim advisory body was appointed
to report to the government by 1976 on the development of an Australian Bio-
logical Resources Survey.
190 BRIDGEWATER
In 1974, Dr. Franklyn Perring, then Director of the Biological Records Centre
for the United Kingdom, made a study visit to Australia at the request of the
ABRS Interim Council. After he had visited all Australian states and the mainland
territories, a major symposium was held in Sydney. This symposium was attended
by a large number of participants from the many regions of Australia. The sym-
posium produced a major interchange of ideas and allowed Dr. Perring to present
some ideas on biological survey and biological recording in Australia. In the years
following that symposium, funding was provided for a wide range of biological
survey-related activities, including taxonomic, biogeographic, and ecological stud-
ies. Ride (1978) presented a detailed review of the early years of the ABRS.
In 1978, the ABRS was formally established as an on-going activity, and the
Bureau of Flora and Fauna was created to service the scientific and administrative
needs of the Study. The organization of the ABRS and the Bureau is shown in
the administration diagram (Figure 2).
In the last few years, project funding by ABRS has become strongly goal-
directed, in contrast to prior attempts to fund proposals in all areas. This change
was necessary to use available funding most effectively to achieve the national
goals, rather than attempt to duplicate state efforts. Funding for taxonomic projects
in the marine environment is also provided by the Marine Resources Allocation
Advisory Council, which is working closely with ABRS to achieve the most
efficient use of funds and expertise.
Major initiatives are now concentrating on the production of distribution at-
lases, the development and management of collecting strategies, and the imple-
mentation of ABIS at a national level. These activities include:
x An atlas of the genus Banksia, coordinated and jointly funded by ABRS and
the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management.
In addition to the expected contributions by professional biologists, this
project is making widespread use of community effort to collect basic data.
Use of community based efforts in biological survey has already been estab-
lished by the Atlas of Australian Birds by Blakers, et al. (1984), and partly
supported by ABRS.
x A five-year plant collecting strategy, agreed to after discussion with the Coun-
cil of Heads of Australian Herbaria. This program allows for ABRS funds to
supplement state collecting efforts in a goal-directed fashion.
Since 1973, the ABRS has diverted its efforts from strategic funding of Biological
Resource surveys to 1) tactical funding of specialized work to aid the publications
program and 2) the development of ABIS. Interaction will be important between
ABIS, as it develops, and the management of surveys by national and state bodies.
In all ABRS activities, full use is being made of advances in information tech-
nology to process, transfer, and allow access to the large volume of data accu-
mulated in all aspects of the study.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
A significant development in this area has been the result of research program
called BIOCLIM between the Bureau of Flora and Fauna and the CSIRO Division
of Water and Land Resources. Briefly summarized, BIOCLIM produces climatic
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY
MINISTER FOR ARTS,
HERITAGE AND
ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT OF
SECRETARY ARTS, HERITAGE
Grant
AND ENVIRONMENT
FAUNA EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
FLORA EDITORAL COMMITTEE
Advice on publication
strategy
Membership;
Publication adyi
DIRECTOR
| BUREAU OF FLORA AND FAUNA
for
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
(INCLUDING PUBLICATIONS)
Preferred
Objectives
PARTICIPATORY PROGRAM
(STATES, TERRITORY,
AND FEDERAL AGENCIES)
Policy Advice;
recommendations
ABRS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Requests
cunding
191
S}UudwyULOdde
Grant
Approval
Fig. 2. The organization of the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) and the Bureau of
Flora and Fauna.
profiles for species based upon known points of occurrence. It then produces maps
showing the known locations plus predicted locations. The climate profiles are
based on a determination, for each known point, of 12 climatic parameters derived
from monthly values for temperature and precipitation.
These parameters are as follows:
Annual mean temperature
Minimum temperature of the coldest month
Maximum temperature of the hottest month
Annual temperature range (3 minus 2)
Mean temperature of the wettest quarter (3 months)
ae 2
Loe BRIDGEWATER
6. Mean temperature of the driest quarter
7. Annual mean precipitation
8. Precipitation of the wettest month
9. Precipitation of the driest month
10. Annual precipitation range (8 minus 9)
11. Precipitation of the wettest quarter
12. Precipitation of the driest quarter
Temperatures are in °C, precipitations in mm.
The profiles are matched with the climate determined for each point of a 0.5
degree latitude-by-longitude grid of Australia. The degree of similarity in climate
between the species profile and each grid point is noted on a five-point scale. All
points are plotted on a map.
The predictive map is immediately useful. For example, the maps can assist
decisions about whether apparently disjunct distributions are likely to reflect
particular patterns or are merely artifacts of collecting. The maps can suggest new
areas for field work, i.e. where a species may be expected to occur but has not yet
been recorded. Predicted distributions may also suggest areas where a new species
might be discovered.
These examples of suggested uses of the predicted distributions are but some
that have arisen in the development of BIOCLIM. Taxa covered in the devel-
opment of BIOCLIM included snakes, mammals, and a range of plant species.
Figure 3 shows the actual and predicted distribution for a species of Banksia.
Maps of all Banksia species in eastern Australia were distributed to all participants
in the Banksia Atlas Project, described above.
Developments of this kind allow the data collected in a national survey to be
utilized even more effectively to:
* Manage conservation reserves
x Assess the likely distribution of species thought to be endangered or rare
x Assess the likely possibilities of invasion by exotic species
x Select species for the rehabilitation of industrially or agriculturally degraded
areas |
x Develop strategies for further survey in remote locations
CONCLUSION
In answering the two questions posed at the start of this paper, ABRS not only
accumulates scientific information but co-ordinates and sponsors tactical research.
Such research aids in the resolution of environmental problems, and assists a
wide range of organizations in planning appropriate environmental objectives.
In this context it is appropriate that ABRS is a component of the Department
of Environment, rather than the Department of Science. For the future, ABRS
has a major task to perform. Utilizing techniques offered by the rapid develop-
ments in information processing and communication will make that task simpler
and allow greater access to the results of the study by Australians and all persons
interested in Australian flora and fauna.
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY 193
Fig. 3. Actual and predicted range of Banksia dentata in Australia. The * indicates each site from
which a specimen has been collected, + indicates a predicted occurrence for sites within the 90
percentile climatic range and — indicates a predicted occurrence for sites between the 90 percentile
and total climatic range.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to acknowledge the efforts of all members of the ABRS Advisory
and Editorial Committees during the last 7 years. Particular acknowledgement
must go to Professor Sir Rutherford Robertson, Professor Ralph Slatyer, and
Professor Geoffrey Sharman—past and present Chairmen of the ABRS Advisory
Committee. Acknowledgement should also be given to previous Ministers for
allowing the study to become established and to the Hon. Barry Cohen, Minister
for Arts, Heritage and Environment for his support of the ongoing efforts of the
ABRS. This paper represents the views of the author and not necessarily those
of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous 1984. A national conservation strategy for Australia. Proposed by a conference held in
Canberra in June 1983. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
194 BRIDGEWATER
Blakers, M., S. J. J. F. Davies & P. N. Reilly. 1984. The atlas of Australian birds. Melbourne
University Press, Melbourne. 738 pp.
Ride, W. D. L. 1978. Towards a National Biological Survey. Search 9: 73-82.
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY E95
APPENDIX 1.
CHENOPODIACEAE
Paul G. Wilson
Herbs, shruvs, or (not in Australia) small trees, glabrous or pubescent, sometimes
glandular. Leaves usually alternate, simple, often succulent, exstipulate, in the Salicornieae
opposite and reduced to small lobes at the apex of jointed internodes (articles).
Inflorescence of compact or open cymes or panicles, or reduced to solitary axillary
flowers. Flowers small, monochlamydeous, bisexual or unisexual. Perianth of 1-5 tepals,
often united, rarely absent, sometimes enlarged and developing wings, spines or tubercles
in fruit. Stamens opposite and equal in number to perianth lobes or fewer, hypogynous or
attached to wall of perianth; staminal disc present or absent; anthers exserted, bilocular,
dehiscing by longitudinal slits. Ovary superior (half inferior in Beta) 2— or 3-carpellate,
unilocular; stigmas usually 2 or 3. Ovule solitary, basal, campylotropous to amphitropous.
Fruit a nut or berry with membranous, crustaceous, or succulent pericarp. Seed often
lenticular; testa membranous to crustaceous; embryo straight, curved, horseshoe-shaped,
annular, or spiral; albumen (perisperm) absent to abundant.
A cosmopolitan family of over 100 genera and 1500 species, particularly common in
semi-arid environments and in saline habitats. Represented in Australia by 302 species in
28 native and 4 introduced genera. A few species have given rise to cultivars of
agriculture; a number of the endemic species were important food plants of Australian
Aborigines.
G. Bentham, Chenopodiaceae, Fi. Austral. 5: 150-208 (1870); F. Mueller, /conography
of Australian Salsolaceous Plants, Decades 1-9 (1889-91); E. Ulbrich, Chenopodiaceae,
Nat. Pflanzenfam. 2nd edn, 16c: 379-584 (1934); P. Aellen, Chenopodiaceae, in Hegi,
Ii. Fl. Mitt.—Eur. 2nd edn, 3: 534-747 (1960-61); R. C. Carolin et a/., Leaf structure in
Chenopodiaceae, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 95: 226-255 (1975); A. J. Scott, Reinstatement and
revision of Salicorniaceae J. Agardh (Caryophyllales), Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 75: 357-374
(1978); A. J. Scott, A revision of the Camphorosmioideae (Chenopodiaceae), /eddes
Repert. 89: 101-119 (1978).
In this treatment the text for 8 species of Atriplex has been contributed by
G. A. Parr-Smith.
KEY TO TRIBES
1 Embryo curved to annular; albumen usually present
2 Plant with well-developed leaves; flowers not immersed in succulent
spikes
3. Fruits not operculate; stigma papillose all over; ovary superior
4 Flowers usually in glomerules, axillary or paniculate; perianth not
or little enlarged in fruit Trib. I. CHENOPODIEAE
4: Flowers usually solitary and axillary; perianth usually enlarged,
hardened, and bearing appendages at fruiting stage Trib. Il. CAMPHOROSMEAE
3: Fruits operculate; stigma papillose within; ovary semi-inferior Trib. III. BETEAE
2: Plant leafless; stems jointed and succulent; flowers usually surrounded
by succulent bracts Trib. IV. SALICORNIEAE
I: Embryo spiral; albumen absent or scanty
196
BRIDGEWATER
CHENOPODIACEAE
12. ROYCEA
Roycea C. Gardner, J. Roy. Soc. Western Australia 32: 77 (1948); named after the
Australian botanist R. D. Royce (1914— ).
Type: R. pycnophylloides C. Gardner
Shrubs or perennial herbs, woolly or silky-pubescent when young. Leaves small, opposite
or alternate, often fasciculate, entire, sessile, often spurred at base. Flowers inconspicuous,
solitary, axillary, sessile, ebracteate, unisexual or bisexual. Perianth ovoid, c. 1 mm high,
+divided into 5 imbricate tepals, not enlarging in fruit. Stamens 5; filaments strap-shaped,
united into a narrow disc at base. Ovary ovoid, c. 0.5 mm long, densely pubescent; style
short, densely pubescent; stigmas 2 or 3, slender. Ovule erect, campylotropous; funicle
arising from a cushion-like placenta. Fruit subglobular, 1-3 mm _ high, surrounded by
perianth at base; pericarp thin, crustaceous. Seed horizontal or oblique; testa thin but
slightly leathery; embryo circular surrounding a small central perisperm; radicle enclosed.
A genus of 3 species endemic in temperate and subtropical Western Australia.
1 Dense mat-forming herbaceous perennial with weak branches 1. R. pycnophylloides
1: Erect shrub with rigid woody branches
2 Plant to 25 cm high, dioecious 2. R. spinescens
2: Plant to 60 cm high; flowers bisexual 3. R. divaricata
1. Roycea pycnophylloides C. Gardner, J. Roy. Soc. Western Australia 32: 78, t. II
A-K (1948)
T: near Meckering, W.A., 7 Sept. 1945, C. A. Gardner 7659; holo: PERTH.
Illustrations: C. A. Gardner, /oc. cit.
Perennial herb forming densely branched, silvery, mat-like growths to 1 m diam.,
dioecious. Branchlets closely woolly, obscured by the leaves. Leaves alternate, imbricate,
narrowly triangular, naviculate and slightly cucullate at the acute apex, fleshy, c. 2 mm
long, 1 mm wide, silky when young. Flowers towards apex of branches. Male flowers
cup-shaped; tepals thin, ovate, c. 1 mm long, silky outside; anthers exserted; pistillode
slender, c. 1 mm long, pubescent. Female flowers suborbicular c. 1 mm long; staminodes
absent; stigmas long-exserted c. 4 mm long. Fruit broadly ovoid c. 2 mm high surrounded
at base by persistent perianth; pericarp crustaceous. Fig. 37 I-J.
Endemic on the saline sandy flats around the Mortlock River near Meckering in southern
W.A. Map 310.
W.A.: Meckering, R. D. Royce 8413 (PERTH).
2. Roycea spinescens C. Gardner, J. Roy. Soc. Western Australia 32: 79, t. Il L-S
(1948)
T: near Meckering, W.A., 7 Sept. 1945, C. A. Gardner 7659a; holo: PERTH.
Illustrations: C. A. Gardner, Joc. cit.
Small rigid shrub to 25 cm high forming colonies several metres in diameter, dioecious.
Branches spinescent, divaricate, glabrous (pubescent in leaf axils). Leaves opposite (to
alternate) in disjunct fascicles, ovate to triangular, 1-4 mm long, carinate, fleshy,
glabrous, the larger ones spurred at base. Flowers in upper leaf-axils. Male flowers cup-
shaped; tepals obovate, united in lower third, c. 2 mm long, ciliate; anthers exserted;
pistillode slender, c. 1 mm long, pubescent. Female flowers globular; tepals sub-orbicular,
+free, c. 1 mm long, thin, ciliate; staminodes absent: Ovary pubescent; stigmas c. 3 mm
long. Fruit sub-globular, c. 3 mm_ high surrounded by persistent perianth; pericarp
crustaceous. Fig. 37A-H.
Occurs from Morawa south to Merredin, W.A., in saline sand and sandy clay. Map 311.
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY
U
. Maireana planifolia
. Maireana appressa
Enchylaena tomentosa
var. tomentosa
Roycea pycnophylloides
Didymanthus roei
Ly)
. Maireana melanocarpa
. Maireana aphylla
. Enchylaena tomentosa
var. glabra
. Roycea spinescens
. Malacocera albolanata
U0
303. Maireana radiata
306. Maireana stipitata
309. Enchylaena lanata
312. Roycea divaricata
315. Malacocera biflora
197
198 BRIDGEWATER
Figure 37. Roycea. A-H, R. spinescens. A, habit < 1.25; B, branch 2.5; C, leaves x5;
D, male flower x10; E, female flower «10 (A-E, M. Menadue 36, PERTH). F, fruit
x 10; G, embryo and seed x10; H, hair cluster x10 (F-H, P. Wilson 10964, PERTH).
I-J, R. pycnophylloides. 1, habit 1.25; J, branch with female flowers x2.5 (I-J,
M. Menadue 37, PERTH).
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY 199
APPENDIX 2
CARETTOCHELYDIDAE
INTRODUCTION
A cryptodirous family with a single living aquatic species which occurs in the rivers of
southern New Guinea and Australia’s Northern Territory.
Characterised in Australia by: bony shell covered by a fleshy, pitted skin without
dermal scutes; paddle-shaped limbs, each with two claws; nostrils at the end of a
prominent, fleshy proboscis.
References
Cann, J. (1978). Tortoises of Australia. Sydney : Angus & Robertson 79 pp.
Cogger, H.G. (1979). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Sydney : A.H. & A.W.
Reed 608 pp.
Pritchard, P.C.H. (1979). Encyclopedia of Turtles. Neptune, N.J. : T.F.H. Publications
895 pp.
Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. (1961). Schildkroten, Krokodile, Briickenechsen. Jena:
Gustav Fischer 422 pp.
Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. (1977). Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien;
Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich 100: i-xxvii, 1-174
Carettochelys Ramsay, 1886
Carettochelys Ramsay, E.P. (1886). On a new genus and
species of fresh water tortoise from the Fly River, New
Guinea. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2) 1: 158-162 [158]
[1887 on title page of bound volume]. Type species
Carettochelys insculptus Ramsay, 1886 by monotypy.
Carettocchelys Ramsay, E.P. (1886). On a new genus
and species of fresh water tortoise from the Fly River,
New Guinea. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2) 1: 158-162
[158] [errore pro Carettochelys Ramsay, 1886; 1887 on
title page of bound volume].
Carretochelys Ramsay, E.P. (1886). On a new genus and
species of fresh water tortoise from the Fly River, New
Guinea. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2) 1: 158-162 [161]
[errore pro Carettochelys Ramsay, 1886; 1887 on title
page of bound volume].
Synonymy that of Cogger, H.G., this work.
This group is also found in southern New Guinea.
Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay, 1886
Carettocchelys [sic] insculptus Ramsay, E.P. (1886).
On a new genus and species of fresh water tortoise from
the Fly River, New Guinea. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.
(2) 1: 158-162 [158]. Type data: holotype, AM R3677,
from Fly River, Papua New Guinea.
Carettochelys insculpta Boulenger, G.A. (1889).
Catalogue of the Chelonians, Rhynchocephalians, and
Crocodiles in the British Museum (Natural History). new
edn. London : British Museum x 311 pp. [236] [valid
emend. pro Carettochelys insculptus Ramsay, 1886}.
Synonymy that of Cogger, H.G., this work.
Distribution: N coastal, (N Gulf), N.T.;
extralimital in New Guinea. Ecology: lentic
freshwater, lotic freshwater, aquatic, noctidiurnal,
predator; seasonal breeder, oviparous, general
carnivore. Biological references: Cogger, H.G.
(1970). First record of the pitted-shelled turtle,
Carettochelys insculpta, from Australia. Search 1:
41; Schodde, R., Mason, I. & Wolfe, T.O. (1972).
Further records of the pitted-shelled turtle
(Carettochelys insculpta) from Australia. Trans. R.
Soc. S. Aust. 96: 115-117; Waite, E.R. (1905).
The osteology of the New Guinea turtle
(Carettochelys insculpta, Ramsay). Rec. Aust.
Mus. 6: 110-118.
200 BRIDGEWATER
SPHECIDAE
_ INTRODUCTION
This cosmopolitan family contains very small to very large solitary wasps. Australia
has about 600 described species and subspecies in over 50 genera of which about a
quarter are endemic. Adults are often collected on flowers or at nesting sites. Nests
are made by burrowing in the ground, by using existing cavities in the ground, in dead
wood or the pith of plants, by constructing mud cells in the open, on house walls or
rocks or tree trunks, and by using abandoned mud nests. One genus (Acanthostethus)
is cleptoparasitic. Adults of other genera provision their cells with insects - there are
records from almost all the orders - or spiders or Collembola. Most genera exhibit
some degree of prey specificity. Bembix is unusual in this respect, for while most
northern hemisphere species studied prey on Diptera, about one third of the
Australian species whose prey is known use other orders (Hymenoptera, Odonata and
Neuroptera) and two species have been found to prey on more than one order of
insects. Recent work on the biology of Arpactophilus sp., Spilomena sp. and Pison
sp., not mentioned as a biological reference because the species were not identified,
was published by Naumann (1983) and on Lyroda sp. by Evans & Hook (1984).
References
Bohart, R.M. & Menke, A.S. (1976). Sphecid Wasps of the World : a Generic
Revision. Berkeley : Univ. California Press ix 695 pp.
Evans, H.E. & Hook, A.W. (1984). Nesting behaviour of a Lyroda predator
(Hymenoptera Sphecidae) on Tridactylus (Orthoptera : Tridactylidae). Aust.
Entomol. Mag. 11: 16-18
Evans, H.E. & West Eberhard, M.J. (1970). The Wasps. Ann Arbor : Univ. Michigan
Press 265 pp.
Naumann, I.D. (1983). The biology of mud nesting Hymenoptera (and their
associates) and Isoptera in rock shelters of the Kakadu Region, Northern Territory.
Aust. Natl. Parks & Wldlf. Serv. Spec. Publ. 10 pp. 127-189
Dolichurus Latreille, 1809
Dolichurus Latreille, P.A. (1809). Genera Crustaceorum
et Insectorum secundem ordinem naturalem in familias
disposita, iconibus exemplisque plurimis explicata. Paris :
A. Koenig Vol. 4 397 pp. [387]. Type species Pompilus
corniculus Spinola, 1808 by subsequent designation, see
Latreille, P.A. (1810). Considérations Générales sur
l'Ordre Naturel des Animaux Composant les Classes des
Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes; avec un
Tableau Méthodique de leurs Genres, Disposés en
Familles. Paris : F. Schoell 444 pp. Compiled from
secondary source: Bohart, R.M. & Menke, A.S. (1976).
Sphecid Wasps of the World : a Generic Revision.
Berkeley : Univ. California Press ix 695 pp.
This group is found worldwide, see Bohart, R.M.
& Menke, A.S. (1976). Sphecid Wasps of the
World : a Generic Revision. Berkeley : Univ.
California Press ix 695 pp. [66].
Dolichurus carbonarius Smith, 1869
Dolichurus carbonarius Smith, F. (1869). Descriptions of
new genera and species of exotic Hymenoptera. Trans.
Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1869: 301-311 [303]. Type data:
holotype, BMNH *F. adult (seen 1929 by L.F. Graham).
from Champion Bay, W.A.
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY
SPHECIDAE
Distribution: NE coastal, NW coastal, Qld., W.A.:
only published localities Mackay, Kuranda, Dunk
Is.. Brisbane and Champion Bay. Ecology: larva -
sedentary, predator : adult - volant; prey Blattodea,
nest in pre-existing cavity. Biological references:
Turner, R.E. (1915). Notes on fossorial
Hymenoptera. XV. New Australian Crabronidae.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) 15: 62-96 (behaviour):
Riek, E.F. (1955). Australian Ampulicidae
(Hymenoptera Sphecoidea). Aust. J. Zool. 3:
131-144 (redescription).
Aphelotoma Westwood, 1841
Aphelotoma Westwood, J.O. (1841). in, Proceedings of
the Entomological Society of London. (Descriptions of
the following exotic hymenopterous insects belonging to
the family Sphegidae). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (1) 7:
151-152 [152]. Type species Aphelotoma tasmanica
Westwood, 1841 by monotypy.
Aphelotoma affinis Turner, 1910
Aphelotoma affinis Turner, R.E. (1910). Additions to our
knowledge of the fossorial wasps of Australia. Proc. Zool.
Soc. Lond. 1910: 253-356 [341]. Type data: holotype,
BMNH *F. adult (seen 1929 by L.F. Graham), from
Townsville, Qld.
Distribution: NE coastal, Qld.; type locality only.
Ecology: larva - sedentary, predator : adult -
volant; prey Blattodea.
Aphelotoma auricula Riek, 1955
Aphelotoma auricula Riek, E.F. (1955). Australian
Ampulicidae (Hymenoptera : Sphecoidea). Aust. J. Zool.
3: 131-144 [139 pl 1 fig 8]. Type data: holotype, ANIC
M. adult, from 10 mi S of Bowen, Qld.
Distribution: NE coastal, Qld.; only published
localities near Bowen and Caloundra. Ecology:
larva - sedentary, predator : adult - volant; prey
Blattodea.
Aphelotoma fuscata Riek, 1955
Aphelotoma fuscata Rick, E.F. (1955). Australian
Ampulicidae (Hymenoptera : Sphecoidea). Aust. J. Zool.
3: 131-144 [139 pl 1 fig 7]. Type data: holotype, ANIC
F. adult, from Catherine Hill, N.S.W.-
Distribution: SE coastal, N.S.W.; type locality
only. Ecology: larva - sedentary, predator : adult -
volant; prey Blattodea.
Aphelotoma melanogaster Riek, 1955
Aphelotoma melanogaster Rick, E.F. (1955). Australian
Ampulicidae (Hymenoptera : Sphecoidea). Aust. J. Zool.
3: 131-144 [135 pl 1 figs 2-3]. Type data: holotype,
ANIC M. adult, from Blundells, A.C.T.
Distribution: NE coastal, SE coastal,
Murray-Darling basin, Qld., N.S.W., A.C.T.
Ecology: larva - sedentary, predator adult -
volant; prey Blattodea.
Aphelotoma nigricula Riek, 1955
Aphelotoma nigricula Rick, E.F. (1955). Australian
Ampulicidae (Hymenoptera : Sphecoidea). Aust. J. Zool.
3: 131-144 [138 pl 1 fig 10]. Type data: holotype, ANIC
M. adult, from Blundells, A.C.T.
Distribution: NE coastal, Murray-Darling basin,
SE coastal, Qld., N.S.W., A.C.T.; only published
localities Stanthorpe, Barrington Tops, Goulburn
and Blundells. Ecology: larva - sedentary, predator
: adult - volant; prey Blattodea.
Aphelotoma rufiventris Turner, 1914
Aphelotoma rufiventris Turner, R.E. (1914). New
fossorial Hymenoptera from Australia and Tasmania.
Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 38: 608-623 [618]. Type data:
holotype, BMNH *M. adult (seen 1929 by L.F. Graham),
from Kuranda, Qld.
Distribution: NE coastal, Qld.; only published
localities Kuranda, Bowen, Stradbroke Is.,
Caloundra and Stanthorpe. Ecology: larva -
sedentary, predator : adult - volant; prey Blattodea.
Biological references: Riek, E.F. (1955). Australian
Ampulicidae (Hymenoptera : Sphecoidea). Aust. J.
Zool. 3: 131-144 (redescription).
Aphelotoma striaticollis Turner, 1910
Aphelotoma striaticollis Turner, R.E. (1910). Additions
to our knowledge of the fossorial wasps of Australia.
Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1910: 253-356 [341]. Type data:
holotype, BMNH *F. adult (seen 1929 by L.F. Graham),
from Townsville, Qld.
Distribution: NE coastal, Qld.; only published
localities Townsville, Kuranda. Ecology: larva -
sedentary, predator : adult - volant; prey Blattodea.
Aphelotoma tasmanica Westwood, 1841
Taxonomic decision of Riek, E.F. (1955). Australian
Ampulicidae (Hymenoptera : Sphecoidea). Aust. J. Zool.
3: 131-144 [136-137].
Aphelotoma tasmanica tasmanica Westwood, 1841
Aphelotoma tasmanica Westwood, J.O. (1841). in
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London.
(Descriptions of the following exotic hymenopterous
insects belonging to the family Sphegidae). Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist. (1) 7: 151-152 [152]. Type data: syntypes
(probable), OUM or BMNH *F. adult, from Tas.
Distribution: SE coastal, Vic., Tas. Ecology: larva -
sedentary, predator : adult - volant; prey Blattodea.
Aphelotoma tasmanica auriventris Turner, 1907
Aphelotoma auriventris Turner, R.E. (1907). New
species of Sphegidae from Australia. Ann. Mag. Nat.
Hist. (7) 19: 268-276 [269]. Type data: holotype, BMNH
*M. adult, from Vic.
201
om Titicca) = ib
fi : \
¥ 7 i? a
i /
€ i eis
‘i, nt 14 ;
i '
i </th,
‘ Lm
"y
i
{
i
4
,
i ! j
;
Mesil
tie eu
! i
fy is ,
a }
iT ‘
Ue ! :
Ji a) i i
i
i A
I] a u
;*
,' re’,
hss
is * "
L :
o |
Bhs
1
va
§ Pi
7
——
ee “S a= = “a
i ame weet omen oe
i * Py
“ -
i, ew me tle
a -
7 be ‘
ht tine 9 em
tlle ae alle - Them Aso UL a 5, ee es Ne, hy ray Lhe at Pek hdd Il = Fae al
A dl eek yt ay ee eae oy, Mga O's Sa HA ay aeerietrs oak Ra if Eats Br dak ae ee
Me ffoay i eT boi way, WM i -
’ 7 * ; i 4 7 ‘ “ie oe ary {iy “3 “ Ava vie . " ips en i : % ins! yer af 7 ; 7 : ; ZZ
sf : ee | ch | t) Wir yh ad a i ai - mas r= + a tay i a “as f ‘ iL : , oe
r in i) . nt A | us as! ie 1g MY ms is ee at sh hae Ls baal cae :
‘< t = , ‘ Ni f 7 Ay if ", w , i“; r ; = ; Hi , ri! Vv; vt we mi at. 4 » 4 , j F 4 * 4
‘ ¢ he ety LAS A ‘% - aut Bn : Rahs a on ris ye pete rts :
fh a : “nes (a wh nl ar = ’ ce vay = iS af : 7) rig ar Wins tye “a
att acme ata a ae gil Mi a:
ox te Maasath ‘opplidim wit Bovibtiding (lhe
at yan pevrnegeaggat > Live fershereset of
ig - sven) > phi ins 7 a cence
Catania PHN ua
Xai iy. sega deantoncionitg
iim. [35a tw Fy
i terawaot uray Bathe free
gaye 4 dri b,
SPL te}
pn f ea oti Bi: ihe ene... : east: a?
penta wysgespaiathainih
| 6s Yast ait qiiihewans sn
lous *) Gale 1eaen sniathicanayrelen ce bathe rh fu eR ‘sel
Ha tihet eset? en wat on ni pe se
i ia yen? ried aria isi 3® ]
Br ot ah igh. foitat ah.” ry! ae iu ee we tip g.8 a
neon ae Mie PareiNted, 5 jet ret Giana pores
ie LANA Meo Rap MOEA GTYN SA. dh tetas.
Rhy praia en wap | riesree: (nbyubend, “tt Le oietatwiwnd
tat “nto: age COE} BOL ALEL. O42 wad Sot
i lh 1A et WEEP Nndel ube? Byer
BUS. pApwercau T.
' ohyl ace: Ay weed
TRO er as hit: ‘. ity Spl ‘¥gols oe
} aR, BO rt, pala a ER spBlery
pacniregenterere ite Paeulet "i
by » aN bei abba si 2: my a wee. rion
' rath ot ae iy ¥ Tah dha eh Ya ctv utab
a Fmt ate a MGA “ay “if egeovanete® t orange ity 4) peel g Clyeeyrn sh
Rt esha SORA Ay lager Re SA poeinstt f
of 5 iG : se bt hs cee magi? tatu. ov.
raat De hewn. phe of an
in | Pivas* 4, Sreapuestatalt?
t Si mR AOE ago atin ,
=!
b RRR A ANG. savanna nt uth
aa al fae Mi} obtoeaitanyitarteiry Bo
Rie a ae 2016 Sent
a? bo
| sail ah
-calahaa A
=r, Par
[ad
a ee
m7 Mes rae
aera ode: toe facies
| iat fh is ee 4 eel
M4 tan eee a ee the TelOTy, tnatanalt
) a ve Nhat a i Ba ApsAt eustiade neueruioter
| A ise wisn weve oso
» .
Lal eli
- =
A, AM blind: aetna, aap ssebeobsects an :bhived gaia geval
av pets wee PIR yong, piewelory
en fo
—
linia ae eh ay ditiePseel
| Ctecipalontl Ame Bitindewiq. a6 fern
Te ae a cH!
eee i Ae :
E a vel)
%
be: pla’ PE aa Noh sta
‘DAMEN, hy "ae Sn! peeiueia
i ‘iu 0 } Se ‘i a ; i
" vue anne rel my a Shep awn 3 saad | aur Fett BBA
z . rs 7 r "
: a
a, <a ee Pg a I A eT RM a
ci - . : = a
ee
fs aw .
oeeeaty Depa Elaine
"
my Sg — i
oe She
A ENE ee cael
fi
h
ee SS SR eo eee
“ 4 ‘
Biological Survey of Canada
(Terrestrial Arthropods)
H. V. Danks
National Museum of Natural Sciences
Abstract: The Biological Survey of Canada, which currently comprises only
the section on Terrestrial Arthropods, catalyses and coordinates studies in
systematics and faunistics on behalf of the National Museum of Natural Sci-
ences and the Entomological Society of Canada. The Survey consists of a small
Secretariat and a larger advisory committee. The Survey acts as a clearing
house for information and also synthesizes scientific information, initiates and
coordinates specific scientific projects of particular current importance, and
prepares commentaries on matters of national concern. It has been successful
in helping to characterize the fauna because it is steered by the scientific com-
munity, produces material of scientific value, has a small and efficient central
operation, and considers ecological as well as taxonomic aspects of the fauna.
Keywords: Clearing-house, Entomology, Systematics, Information Service.
INTRODUCTION
The Biological Survey of Canada was developed to help characterize the Ca-
nadian fauna by supporting appropriate work based on a national scientific over-
view of requirements. Because the Survey developed relatively recently from an
initiative of the Entomological Society of Canada (see below), only terrestrial
arthropods are currently included. The Survey organization comprises a small
full-time Secretariat, employed at the National Museum of Natural Sciences, and
a larger, widely representative advisory Scientific Committee constituted through
the Entomological Society of Canada. The full Committee meets twice per year,
and its expenses are provided by the National Museum of Natural Sciences.
ROLES OF THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA
The Survey helps to expand knowledge of the Canadian fauna by catalysing
and coordinating faunal studies. It therefore does not, for example, maintain a
collection, nor will it attain great size, because it aims mainly to facilitate work
carried out in various federal, provincial, university, and other institutions. The
Survey functions both as a clearing house and in scientific capacities.
The Role of the Survey as a Clearing House for Information
The Survey maintains current directories and inventories of personnel with
interests in systematics and faunistics, collections, sites with long-term protection
203
204 DANKS
suitable for faunal work, field stations, and other more specialized inventories.
The major inventories are published from time to time (e.g., Biological Survey
Project, 1977, 1978). From this information, the Survey can answer queries and
assist those persons or agencies planning fieldwork in a particular area. The head
of the Secretariat travels extensively each year to entomological centers across
the country to exchange information and ideas, so that entomologists with over-
lapping interests in different organizations can be put in touch with one another
and can contribute to the scientific discussions of the Survey. The role of infor-
mation exchange is also incorporated into a twice-yearly Newsletter of the Bio-
logical Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), which includes each spring a
list of requests for cooperation or information.
Scientific Roles of the Survey
In its main role, the Survey, with its advisory Committee, oversees national
scientific endeavours in systematic and faunistic entomology. Three sorts of ac-
tivities support and stimulate basic research toward an understanding of the fauna:
syntheses of knowledge, the discussion and organization of individual scientific
projects, and more general initiatives.
1. Syntheses of Knowledge
The Survey plans and executes substantial reviews of scientific information.
Major volumes already published are Canada and its Insect Fauna (Danks, 1979),
Arctic Arthropods (Danks, 1981), and Temporal and Spatial Changes in the Ca-
nadian Insect Fauna (Downes, 1981). Other books and symposia proceedings
covering broad fields of study are in preparation (e.g., see Yukon below).
Canada and its Insect Fauna established a baseline for the arthropod survey.
It explored the physical environment of Canada and its history, the habitats and
arthropod distributions that have resulted, the state of knowledge for each group,
and general problems concerning the nature of the fauna in relation to Canadian
conditions. Arctic Arthropods took a similar approach in greater depth for areas
beyond the northern limit of trees. Taxonomy and ecology were treated at more-
or-less equal length in these books, reflecting the philosophy that a scientifically
appropriate survey cannot be planned from only one of these perspectives.
2. Scientific Projects
Most of the current activities catalysed by the Survey are focused into specific
scientific projects, selected for their current scientific importance and feasibility.
Most of the projects deal with subjects, taxa, or regions that are especially sig-
nificant to an understanding of the Canadian insect fauna and that are so broad
in scope that unaided efforts would be piecemeal or not feasible. Other projects
develop subject areas that have previously been overlooked (see also soil fauna
in the next section). Examples of some of these projects, at varying stages of
development, are outlined below to indicate how diverse topics can be approached
in this way.
-Illustrated keys to the families of arthropods in Canada. Many laboratory and
field studies, and teaching, are seriously hindered by the lack of an up-to-date
and readily usable key to the families of terrestrial arthropods found or expected
to be found in Canada. A profusely illustrated key to families is therefore being
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA 205
developed. A fascicle on myriapods is complete and awaits publication, and work
on the fascicles covering insects is proceeding.
-Arthropod fauna of the Yukon. The Yukon territory has many diverse habitats
and a very extensive but inadequately understood arthropod fauna. For this rea-
son, and because part of the region was unglaciated during Pleistocene time, the
Yukon is a key area for interpreting the nature and development of the Canadian
fauna. Biological Survey initiatives have led to several recent field parties, and a
preliminary prospectus has been developed for a book on the arthropod fauna of
the Yukon.
-Arthropod fauna of Canadian grasslands. The arthropods of the grasslands are
surprisingly inadequately known. This hinders the understanding of the fauna of
a large part of the continent and in particular an understanding of the origin and
setting of the faunas of major present-day agricultural lands. An annual Grasslands
Newsletter is being produced as this project develops.
-Insect fauna of freshwater wetlands in Canada. Wetlands cover a substantial
area of the surface of Canada and are of particular ecological importance as
reservoirs that buffer the effects of variations in rainfall on the lands that surround
them. The insect fauna of wetlands, the identification of larvae (the stage normally
encountered), and their ecological characteristics are largely unknown. Peatlands
(bogs and fens) comprise the greatest proportion of wetlands in Canada; marshes
are of particular interest because they serve as breeding and staging grounds for
a wide variety of birds, many of which depend on arthropods as food. After this
project had been introduced to the entomological community (Rosenberg, 1981),
a Symposium was organized (1984) in which participants reviewed the status of
each characteristic group of wetland insects in bogs, fens, and marshes. The pro-
ceedings of this symposium are now being edited prior to publication.
-Aquatic insects of Newfoundland. The fauna of Newfoundland is of particular
interest in a Canadian context because it presumably reflects mainly postglacial
immigration from the mainland to an island or peninsular situation. Aquatic
habitats cover one third of the surface area of the island of Newfoundland, yet
their insects were very inadequately known when the project on this fauna began.
A preliminary survey of insect groups—the first stage of the project—has now
been completed (Larson and Colbo, 1983), revealing a characteristically boreal
but much reduced fauna.
-Arthropod fauna of freshwater springs in Canada. Springs are discrete habitats
that can be relatively easily sampled. Their faunas would be expected to provide
an index of groundwater quality, and springs are particularly interesting zoogeo-
graphically because they may contain endemic species and can indicate the pres-
ence or absence of recent glaciation. This project was launched with a preliminary
article (Williams, 1983) and is being supported by individual research contribu-
tions, by preparation of a bibliography (awaiting publication), and by other ac-
tivities. A symposium to synthesize available information is planned for the near
future.
3. General Initiatives
The Survey prepares commentaries to alert individuals or organizations and to
206 DANKS
stimulate studies in areas of concern. A few examples of these activites are outlined
below. :
-Arthropods of the soil. The Survey recognized the great importance of the very
inadequately known soil fauna of Canada in maintaining the fertility of soils but
realized that the taxonomic resources available to remedy deficiencies in knowl-
edge were too limited to support an active project. Therefore, the ecological roles
of the arthropod fauna of the soil and the current state of knowledge of Canadian
soil arthropods were outlined in a brief (Marshall et al., 1982). Various activities
including wide distribution of this brief helped to stimulate an international con-
ference on faunal influences on soil structure (1984), the proceedings of which are
in press. This conference established contact between pedologists and soil zool-
ogists and has led to plans for further relevant research.
-Appraisal of environmental disturbance. The Survey prepared a brief (Lehmkuhl
et al., 1984) which pointed out that insects are potentially valuable in assessing
environmental disturbance and noted that such work has to be planned and
conducted with proper scientific procedures.
-Regional collections. The Survey realized the need for a network of regional
collections in addition to a strong national collection and has presented ideas
about the use and development of these collections for discussion by interested
biologists (Danks, 1983).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA
Origin of the Biological Survey of Canada 7
The Biological Survey began as the Pilot Study for a Biological Survey of the
Insects of Canada, an idea proposed by the Entomological Society of Canada in
1974 (Entomological Society of Canada, 1974). This idea stemmed from the
realization that the insect fauna of Canada, despite its scientific and practical
importance, was very inadequately known: about 66,000 species of terrestrial
arthropods are believed to occur, but only about half of these have even been
described. An understanding of the fauna of Canada was therefore by no means
commensurate with needs relating not only to insects of agricultural, forestry, and
medical significance, but also to the more diffuse requirements of environmental
concerns and the management of complex, living natural resources. Moreover,
systematic resources were inadequate for the tasks required, especially in the
absence of any group charged with a national scientific overview of research and
needs in insect taxonomy and ecology.
The Pilot Study was funded by a government contract held by the Entomological
Society of Canada. Results of this study and of subsequent more specific contracts
showed that a survey of the form already described was feasible. Following the
recommendations of the Pilot Study (see Danks, 1978), a Survey organization
was established in 1980 within the National Museum of Natural Sciences and
was renamed the Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods). The im-
portant role of the Entomological Society of Canada was retained, that of ap-
pointing the advisory committee, which provides access to the scientific com-
munity. The form of the name accords with the idea that the terrestrial arthropods
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA 207
module of the Survey is a model for parallel arrangements in due course for other
groups of organisms.
Future of the Biological Survey of Canada
The Survey recently has prepared (for the National Museum of Natural Sciences)
documents confirming that the Survey should be expanded by the addition of
modules for other areas of study but without the dilution of the disciplinary
expertise of the existing module. Each module would thus rely on the scientific
community for a particular discipline, through an advisory Scientific Committee,
and would have its own small Secretariat. All such modules would be coordinated,
and a complete Biological Survey of Canada would be composed of relatively few
modules, each of rather broad range. Further expansion of the Survey therefore
requires two parallel developments: interest from other groups of scientists, and
additional federal resources channelled through the National Museum of Natural
Sciences.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Biological Survey of Canada differs in three main characteristics from some
existing biological surveys in other countries (such surveys were reviewed by
Danks and Kosztarab, in press). First, the Biological Survey of Canada draws its
ideas and scientific orientations from the scientific community itself (by direct
contact and through the advisory Scientific Committee), rather than from a nar-
rowly appointed executive group. .
Second, it relies largely on the coordination of widespread existing resources
by a small and efficient organization, without the creation of a large new central
research group. However, in various ways (e.g., publication of briefs, development
of ideas and proposals) the Survey provides a climate favorable for obtaining new
resources to support work that is viewed as important. Moreover, the Survey’s
coordination results in usable published scientific products as explained above,
so that the Survey does not simply produce administrative documents for ‘“‘co-
ordination”’.
Third, the Survey does not restrict its purview to taxonomic work. Because the
fauna can be characterized and information about it used in various ways only if
the functioning of species as well as their identity is known, the Survey has always
emphasized ecology as well as taxonomy. This approach has been successful in
initiating and maintaining the Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthro-
pods) during a period of widespread reduction in governmental resources.
LITERATURE CITED
Biological Survey Project. 1977. Annotated list of workers on systematics and faunistics of Canadian
insects and certain related groups. Pilot Study for a Biological Survey of the Insects of Canada,
Entomological Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 107 p.
Biological Survey Project. 1978. Collections of Canadian insects and certain related groups. Pilot
study for a biological survey of the insects of Canada, Entomological Society of Canada. Bull.
Entomol. Soc. Can. 10(1), Suppl., 21 p.
Danks, H. V. 1978. Biological survey of the insects of Canada. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Can. 10(3): 70-
73.
Danks, H. V.(ed.) 1979. Canada and its insect fauna. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 108. 573 p.
208 DANKS
Danks, H. V. 1981. Arctic arthropods. A review of systematics and ecology with particular reference
to the North American fauna. Entomol. Soc. of Canada, Ottawa. 608 p.
Danks, H. V. 1983. Regional collections and the concept of regional centres. In: D. J. Faber (ed.)
Proceedings of 1981 Workshop on Care and Maintenance of Natural History Collections. Syllogeus
44: 151-160. 196 p.
Danks, H. V. & M. Kosztarab. In press. Biological surveys. (Proceedings of a Symposium on Bio-
systematics Services in Entomology, Hamburg, 1984).
Downes, J. A. (ed.) 1981. Symposium: temporal and spatial changes in the Canadian insect fauna.
Can. Entomol. 112(1980)(11): 1089-1238.
Entomological Society of Canada. 1974. A biological survey of the insects of Canada: a brief. Bull.
Entomol. Soc. Can. 6(2), Suppl., 16 p.
Larson, D. J. & M. H. Colbo. 1983. The aquatic insects: biogeographic considerations. Jn: G. R.
South (Ed.), Ecology and biogeography of the island of Newfoundland. Monographiae Biologicae,
Vol. 48. Junk, The Hague.
Lehmkuhl, D. M., H. V. Danks, V. M. Behan-Pelletier, D. J. Larson, D. M. Rosenberg, & I. M.
Smith. 1984. Recommendations for the appraisal of environmental disturbance: some general
guidelines, and the value and feasibility of insect studies: a brief by the Biological Survey of
Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods). Bull. Entomol. Soc. Can. 16(3), Suppl., 8 p.
Marshall, V. G., D. K. McE. Kevan, J. V. Matthews, Jr., & A. D. Tomlin. 1982. Status and research
needs of Canadian soil arthropods: a brief by the Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Ar-
thropods). Bull. Entomol. Soc. Can. 14(1), Suppl., 5 p.
Rosenberg, D. M. 1981. Aquatic insects of freshwater wetlands. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Can. 13(4):
151-153.
Williams, D. D. 1983. National survey of freshwater springs. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Can. 15(1): 30-
34.
SECTION VI.
CONCLUSION
Nats ie
ra
te
Pe bal
." eu ; *
: seven es
Ls SS eee
\ Utah
r :
4
. 2 a
ea oe ate
: " itis
ye POR ee ‘?
crrangieaicaiedty ae
Bak. ‘wet i Wer qe - ye
Tete web peor bt” am
2 as abies Ls eee f ee |
of Cinna « cme cage yt hae orl ae
aad Hpk eh
i ee wh a PRR A
\ . iis bad Fa oe sade Bic ta
Or oet m igatl Fy gan? Bie! Pa A er
ihe Pal y vi! hr Betta ey! fa ui De
Nase yee Ha Melina oh resi ih eben dai a eT eee 1A 4
txt gets Ee
a gi a
1
» “ ‘ 3 P
4 i Brad a= - ui ae ‘ j af ave ies
pews, K a2 i ai veel *} We ke . cite Mo Tao aa ei 7
ropes, | i a ue i ie ao Ns Ol ogee i)
i r vite ay PN rah ete 1a a ree ® ti. ; ae . r Pat , a a
teu are : : 7 ‘i
i as oan rea me
a ig ma! 1 t0
y 4
7/5
ee sick! ee ie oA
bi om . ‘?, Pett 1 vue a. ;
tae A ‘ ? at if] bf Th ie | a — i in
ry ee ea r ; q Lr ie : f
i We a ; mis (
ye a iok. Sanity Sv abot ‘ A
cw + i vor a ae a te og ee eas
sai aR ti ‘*
UP te \ y, =e 7+ P
ud i oF Ay f
i Peal | wa
viele P ya
‘ ‘ fy es ‘ +
eh a as :
ical
mr edo gid Ras
br j : ' , sae. i mg Py ‘ ae aren a‘ te
as 4 ali aa j if < i 7 +
i" i" feds uf Pile, oa, ‘ Pal vo Hey
(a PD.
aa ik
'
: en
i A = k
i i 1
i
‘ 7 | - aa
u ' a 7 =e: ee fel 4 pels oe ‘al tala ‘haat
An Overview of the Symposium
Lorin I. Nevling, Jr.
Field Museum of Natural History
(President, ASC 1984-1985)
Abstract: An overview is presented of the 1985 ASC symposium, “‘Com-
munity Hearings on a National Biological Survey,” based on the presentations,
comments, questions, and discussion. The overview focuses on the basic points
of general agreement that can serve as a basis for a continuing dialogue and
organizational effort. |
The 1984 meeting of the Association of Systematics Collections held in Cham-.
~ paign/Urbana, Illinois can be described in a single word—tumultuous. The matter
that triggered the stormy session was the multiplicity of viewpoints and honest
disagreements concerning the national biological survey. ,
It became increasingly clear during the course of the 1984 meeting that the
survey was of such significance to the scientific community and to the public at
large that it should be the focus of the Association’s 1985 Symposium. Drs. K.
C. Kim and Lloyd Knutson volunteered to organize the symposium, an act which
seemed scarcely sane at the time. As they began to develop the form of the
symposium and to develop the list of potential contributors who would provide
the substance, their organizational skills became evident. As you reflect on this
symposium, I am certain that you will gain an appreciation of the care with which
it was organized and the plain hard work it entailed. They did a superb job, and
we are grateful to them for organizing this opportunity for all of us.
This symposium outlined the rationale for a national biological survey. Included
were discussions on the usefulness and applicability of survey results to a wide
variety of federal agencies, the scientific community, and other important seg-
ments of the private or governmental sector.
Technical details of data management, manipulation, and dissemination were
presented, together with discussions of data pitfalls and shortages. Technological
breakthroughs in hardware and software in the relatively near future were intro-
duced; this topic left some of us in management positions wondering if it would
be prudent to purchase anything at this time.
The past and current responsibilities held by various governmental groups
demonstrated the bio-political complexity of undertaking the survey and brought
to mind the motto on the flag of Culpeper’s Minutemen, “Don’t Tread on Me.”
We also heard of the plans, activities, and results of similar projects from our
colleagues in Australia, the Republic of Mexico, and subsequently, in this volume,
211
ya we NEVLING
from Canada. They have struggled with many of the same questions that have
faced us during the course of the symposium. |
Overall, I sensed that an increasingly intellectual approach to the survey has
replaced the emotionalism of last year’s ASC meeting and that a conceptual model
is beginning to evolve. |
The rationale—the “case” —for the survey is emerging but, in my opinion, is
still short of being fully convincing. The survey must not be over-sold as a social
program for the biological community or as a matter of nationalistic pride. The
case for relevancy must be established on merit and must be convincing to leg-
islators who need to see a tangible benefit to their constituents and to the nation.
I believe I detected general agreement by the participants on the following points:
*x The activities of man are destroying the natural world.
*x The national biological survey would be useful to a broad constituency including
decision makers, and informed decisions may help to retard the rate of destruc-
tion of our natural heritage. :
x If a national biological survey were to be mounted, a substantial financial
participation by the federal government would be required.
*x Finances will drive programs and determine their scope.
*x The survey will require both basic research and synthesis of previous research.
An active interface between and among scholars and information specialists
will need to be established.
x A massive amount of information is available concerning our biological re-
sources, but it is scattered and sometimes inaccessible. The chain leading from
information to knowledge to understanding needs to be understood and strongly
forged from the outset.
*x The survey must be focused, and that focus must be simple and understandable.
*x Short-term results will be required and progress must proceed in an incremental,
logical fashion. The products and markets must be carefully and realistically
determined in advance.
x A management framework needs to be developed to formulate broad goals and
specific objectives for the survey.
We have met together, shared mutual opportunities, renewed old acquaintances,
established new contacts, and come to realize the broad base of support the survey
has from many diverse quarters. This is the first of many planning and organi-
zational sessions, and I am pleased that the Association of Systematics Collections
was the organizer. My thanks to Drs. Kim and Knutson, to the speakers, to all
the participants, and to Dr. Craig Black, who invited us to hold our meeting here
at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
PRESENTED BY SPEAKERS!
Robert M. West
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
W. Donald Duckworth
Bernice P.Bishop Museum
1. Institutionalize a national biological survey at state and federal levels, in close
coordination with adjoining states and countries; consult extensively with ex-
isting agencies and organizations already or potentially performing the same
work; conduct workshops and symposia to ensure adequate understanding and
assignment of tasks.
2. Establish a central archive and data maintenance facility to develop or adapt
consistent data-gathering processes and networks; this central archive will
include life-history data, photographs, molecular genetic information, and so
on.
3. Conduct a general survey and inventory of the status of existing biotic re-
sources, including endangered or fragile ecosystems. The boundaries of this
survey should be biologically, not geopolitically, determined.
4. Resist the temptation to establish a national biological survey on an insufficient
funding basis. Review the successes and failures of other countries’ efforts via
a specially constituted steering committee. Simultaneously, assess the actual
present and projected needs of potential user communities.
5. Provide an effective means of distribution of and access to all the data gathered
and generated by this survey, taking advantage of current and future technology
and the changing and variable requirements of the user communities. Include
keys and identification manuals in addition to monographic studies.
'The body of recommendations presented in the separate papers was an important
product of the conference. The conference co-chairmen thus felt it would be instructive to
ask two of the participants to attempt to summarize the essence of the recommendations
and pertinent discussions.
213
4
: rin
he Lewes:
ot 4 ) a
‘ yi ; ts
oe |
: P :
dell ; ;
a te q
oi pp HA “ '
e 7 aee % { is 1 fs ¥ q 1 ’ i il i ww, 3 4 al + .. * a ooncentse ch ' yaar .
&'} ‘ a) atl! b we ; 7 < , » ee | _ . & a as , - ei 4 +
ane Lay i Fs Un "A =a . : . ary
_ s ¥ a a v ‘ie °: 1 : Z
nousnl omiansy oF 5 3 ener éladsint: fie cide, Thee
BW cMAblahee an tpent-and.siase be Gpey cag to’ l4e-
ihe MRneft: ees ut w thse Tatler.
ny a saa thi wattiral Widtid.
Kae, Piekal siabpratciesy eo Oe ae wFIOg brond: sah iat sehr y +7 Sudan
| Makers) AER Hannes aeeions sri, said is Fetand ie Fase we destiincs
h Oy natuent borteg «
1h
“a rp & ational prick teeier were, Yo! se palieaoat qc yulieestitiqd fiaian’ ah
> pea ticepeniod Dy the Sidural Rel ecao ult ectlg! by quired.
e Eananoes al drive programs ail! determine their ofape. inp
pwills ny: bor bare etal sith » mattress tA pre rigs rSeur
rm ee repfvtavon bate astale aniiic aba tite watkseiiosy
at nn 1S or't eoian 4 :
Btu dinadevciaiding cétiis 10 bi he paabea io
| Spars i bar avai erin) € daild sie
dete ad niatke aa be ‘ciaitul tally mat Yeatingeutty:
inte Sad ‘Crone yv ta tine yovine Tevwtan ‘ raybna)
Penn of ilefrde vote:
Fania bs
gyi errsttats | Mich, |
n ou. vr Higa vorae | ae
i
O44
Jf
< 135 7 ,
‘ “ 7 - = F
4’ 7 ‘4 - q <<
7 . J *) f
i + { é 1 d 1 f ‘ 4 nf:
rw? a : ira .
F 7 is ‘id Ls ‘oe. CY ve =
- A i ‘ + | . te _ - 1 "
ik” i , 5 i" vo. ‘
- » f
is Ae hak i : - is bade +c ha « ; a
aa | a's
LF: 4 - Na - =
- © SS ou, i . - a
re -" . : *
1 a ¢ ] * i :
: ™ ‘ 7 .
" nl t -
ey ri J h ¥ ei f :
ra > a
=
7 é 5] \ va
nH
- a i a
td
=.
i
- ted
—
__
yh oc |, Ane
a
an "
late seu ape dive Btn biiies lai: bas oh amills os) yi re
oi Riese ph anensn Po gin porte ley ema oncpey pote sais whom
proleeersnne ore Kage gen att maaan.) Snes tone! Os i
. = ) ; fei &
‘tg Bphe ¢ pestis sh ti ha 2
. he ‘het sire v hee
be pames eA AT:
ADI aRoiten & oNalaeG saatnepitiaitect sol
=| ie Te * P| = ito
par eee ys an Laren he rom a hans
a oy hs Paes aa
‘.f th Bt - fk _" a
ey he Di ee “tik _ ot : Ear
a, <. ek ‘r ‘ as 7
i iar ve as
nate 62 _ - ¥
* fuk 5a o
hee, >
| - ne
Epilogue
A National Biological Survey:
A Vehicle for the Study of
Our Living Resources
The concept of a national biological survey is a critical issue for environmental
protection, resource management, and systematic biology in the U.S. It provides
a powerful vehicle for “‘rediscovering” the state of the North American fauna and
flora, through which the essential database on the living resources of our nation
will be developed. Before engaging in environmental debates, such as the impact
of acid rain and its importance to our environment or planning our resource
management, we first must have an accurate assessment of the North American
biota and its rapidly changing status. This concept is expected to promote a
national consensus to develop suitable national programs to explore, document,
and monitor our fauna and flora. However, many questions will require precise
answers before any national consensus can be reached pertaining to the approaches
and organization for an appropriate national biological survey and its relationship
to other national endeavors.
The 1985 ASC Symposium was the first national sgateesnes’ in the U.S. spe-
cifically devoted to a biological survey of this country. This Symposium dealt to
some extent with questions of funding, organizational basis, structure, and func-
tioning, which were beyond the initial goals of the meeting. However, it is hoped
that the Symposium will provide a keystone for further debates on many aspects
of a national biological survey so that a reasonably national consensus can be
reached on the approaches and organization for such a national program. We
expect that a few more national conferences on a national biological survey will
be held. We trust that this volume will be of value as baseline information for
future discussion.
Ke Chung Kim
The Pennsylvania State University
Lloyd Knutson
_Biosystematics and
Beneficial Insects Institute
aie
|
teat
A oy Paes © 3
Bhs
. sth
NVINOSHLINS S3!IyVudil LIB!
]
|
NVINOSHLINS S31YVYE!IT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI
ISTITUTION NOILOLILSNI
BO CS me SMASH, NSBR ONG ee cee eee oO a eg
Nie” 6 SS a SSAC a el 5.8
: = " te 2 : a f 4 : : #
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS saiuvuaia LIBRI
, . os : . ne e Le
° ‘to ae . o m iN :
-vf FZ > >i = = .
= + Wp Uy ad 2 28 . 20 7 E
7 @ ‘jf? m Ques aes @ =
= “ ” _ & 2) 4
NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IYVUGIT_LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILN
= 2) i ate ee w Zz Scr cS uw ;
< = <x NE = < ae = ;
z = SWWHY F ar AC
2 B 3 2 Ne 2 ae 2
rE ae E Z : 2
et ie ; z
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI
| ” | > | ” oa ” 2
sa aM _ w ud 7)
x. = a = si 5
< Cc =< 2. << x
oad be © a 8 —
_ < al z oe 2 i
S3J!1YVYUIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILN
ow = ow = a oi
A “~ 0) —_ aA pea |
> i > bes , a
oe - = re . oe &
eer w ee . betas Ww) ‘
o vee D : oD =
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IUVUSIT LIBRA
“6 dp) = . Ww Pal io 2) pee < “oy
a iy 5 Gj z
z 5 SS is hy. Z Vig pane \
3 2 ww. HG ? ph?
2 he . ss 2 Des f° of a z “ ye 7" Ee NS
a ” sale z n = 77) ‘
NVINOSHLINS Sa1YV48IT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION | NOILA,
- > — se ;
7 _ ” sa Yn DR ya 7
= mo | = oc Yn, o « ’
— “ < Yo ff J A < ’
= “& i a ree az ;
O ‘ iad O a oO oes :
= _ = a 2 ee" }
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLIWS Saruvudiy LIBRI
es =< ~ : Zz EY i
pe -O Pd o Ne © o
5 2 5 2 NAR 5 :
Ps > ; =. \ EE =
i . - . c _
NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31YVYEIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN NOILN
z 7) Pr jaa’: ” z W P
< = = = ‘= = :
= = rie — — mth Af
O a at Se ols O he ae
gy oC 2 g
= z = Zz = z2 Uy
= “= a . 2 a ~ 2 om
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3aluvudi7 LIBRA
~ al” _ op a ep
a. st « = ~ =
ae sew a er a a4
m 5 i 5 = 2 a
NOILNLILSNI_NVINOSHLINS S3!YVYGIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILN.
Ce = itt x e ae ra :
re) . = wo — OD “iN
> We 5 re . _ 2 S
a & = a ee eo
m S\N ” :m “”) om ”
ITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
LIBRA
NOILNS
INOSHLIWS
INSTITUTION
Satuvual
S Salyvugin
NVINOSHLIW
ITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTION
LIBRARIES
INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI
S3Iuvygiy
ITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
INOSHLINS
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN
2
”
of
i
3
oS ot
ITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Pe =
“0 =
a
> =
= ;
, D z
INOSHLINS Sa IyYvydai
ee,
ond os % :
ro ths fg
o ys
S ‘j
ITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTION
ye ul
= 0
& C =
“io 3 c
2 _
NOSHLINS S3IY¥VHSsIT
> = re
e wo
Swat 5 n
\ Sot =
. oc is
WW 2 Z
i wn
ITHSONIAN
_INSTITUTION
SMITHSONIAN
NVINOSHLIWS
SMITHSONIAN
a
LIBRARIES, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, NOILNLILSNI_ NYINOSHLINS
Baran 5 < oe, = Cc) WS A , es 4
; a i. Cc S ’ REX ay
r 3 0 Keay = < °y mF
: 5 Biba
NOILLNLILSNE NVINOSHLIWS saluvidi 7 LIBRARIES Sino
= pie ee
OQ ow ‘mE
0 ae 2 &
wan > ra <4 “ >
= AB — ‘ty Uy 7a
D m = YY m
en 1o2) — 1?)
wm
=
er
a.
Ww ®,
©
=
>
8
NVINOSHLINS S3INVHSIT_LIBRA
oe, Zz ”
& 2 gt - Z
~ eS ae * 3 ,
\ PD = S
= = =
SS = a . . = =
NOILALILSNI- “saruvagi7_t!BRARIES SMITHSONIAN _| :
ry a W
om. ree Hi oa. ai
md = ws | <x”, 4
Pen cS ee per
~4 vo 4 =
5 m= ) oe “os On
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _ NOILNLILSNI_NVINOSHLIWS am |
5 i. S oe of
_ in a pe a
> ay ~~ > §
ym ® vi Ww mi WO &E
Tig Zz vie = OW =i
NOILNLILSNI_ NVINOSHLINS Sa1uvuaIT_LIBRARIES | i
es: Se eS = < §
4p = 3 Z = z §
a: z 2 WN 2 2
; Gf a= 2 EF Ye 2 e |
, a 5 Ai a
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _ een NV
= CG. cc = a |
< fp 7) 2 : € WHE
a ca hee = re = | SS va)
a 2 | a z ee
NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3!1u¥vVugI7T LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN If
| a z i PS co
x Lia a — QBtas a &
ame - He 7p) tees need
= ” m 2 te =
w” ee " i os
LIBRARI ES SMITHSONIAN a NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLINS ee
3 Ko = 7 < = ‘S = :
ASE: - = 5 = §
A eS S = SF
-~ £ < = = §
Sa S > g = > BF
ee 4 w” 1 ee 7) =
NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLINS SaiyvudI7_ “LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _ If
z Te ” ae: Z2E
= ee = c —
ond < — C %, + &
c aa , J Cc Fz
= & “ sce + £
re) St Se) 2 roe:
z 3 = wad ze
LIBRARIES INSTITUTION | NOLLALILSNI ~¥
O os 2) oO ° §
. : = * Ba
“ s, pe > §
ji. " > - > » bt &
z hi z D Zz
s <a
by hog . — ae
A CS
y $4
SIIVEGIT apap ies cuir)
att
NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLIW
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES
oe TT
cers 3 9088 00054 7281
»
Sal
ea Clie 2h a +; X ‘ he F *
{
i ‘)
erate ‘ A
3 iY
* 5 y \
. ’
At c
4 { . .
‘ A Ride Ghat { ‘ :
‘ % i v 7 -
SEES RE Fala " i n* : i \
i is} ¥ 4 tN i : ws
rt ice Z : \ 3 t
1 : i
is 1 ~ Pa ‘ 3 i: ‘
NY; . ‘ ‘ ee * n t
\ 4 ‘ aha
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11